A SELECTIVE MICROFILM EDITION
PARTIV
(1899-1910)
Thomas E. Jeffrey Lisa Gitelman Gregory Jankunis David W. Hutchings Leslie Fields
Robert Rosenberg Director and Editor
Theresa M. Collins Gregory Field Aldo E. Salerno Karen A. Detig Lorie Stock
Sponsors
Rutgers, The State University Of New Jersey National Park Service, Edison National Historic Site New Jersey Historical Commission Smithsonian Institution
University Publications of America Bethesda, MD 1999
Edison signature used with permission ofMcGraw-Edis
Thomas A. Edison Papers
at
Rutgers, The State University endorsed by
National Historical Publications and Records Commission 18 June 1981
Copyright © 1999 by Rutgers, The. State University • •
All rights reserved. No part of this publication including any portion of the guide and hidex or of the microfilm may be reproduced, stored hi a retrieval system, or transmitted hi any form by any means— graphic, electronic, mechanical, or chemical, hicludhigphotocopying, recordhigor taphig, or information storage and retrieval systems— witiiout written permission of Rutgers, The State University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
The original documents hi this edition are from the archives at the Edison National Historic Site at West Orange, New Jersey.
ISBN 0-89093-703-6
THOMAS A. EDISON PAPERS
Robert A. Rosenberg Director and Editor
Thomas E. Jeffrey Associate Director and Coeditor
Paul B. Israel
Managing Editor, Book Edition Helen Endick
Assistant Director for Admimstration
Associate Editors Theresa M. Collins Lisa Gitelman Keith A. Nier
Researcli Associates
Gregory Jankunis Lorie Stock
Assistant Editors Louis Cariat Aldo E. Salerno
Secretary Grace Kurkowski
Student Assistants
Amy Cohen Jessica Rosenberg
Bethany Jankunis Stacey Saelg
Laura Konrad Wojtek Szymkowiak
VishaJ Nayak Matthew Wosniak
BOARD OF SPONSORS
Rutgers, The State University of New National Park Service
Jersey John Maounis
Francis L. Lawrence Maryanne Gerbauckas
Joseph J. Seneca Roger Durham
Richard F. Foley George Tselos
David M. Oshinsky Smithsonian Institution
New Jersey Historical Commission Bernard Finn
Howard L. Green Arthur P. Molella
EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD
James Brittain, Georgia Institute of Technology R. Frank Colson, University of Southampton Louis Galambos, Johns Hopkins University Susan Hockey, University of Alberta Thomas Parke Hughes, University of Pennsylvania Peter Robinson, Oxford University
Philip Scranton, Georgia Institute of Technology/Hagley Museum and Library Merritt Roe Smith, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTORS
PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Charles Edison Fund The Hyde and Watson Foundation National Trust for the Humanities Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation
PUBLIC FOUNDATIONS National Science Foundation National Endowment for the Humanities
National Historical Publications and Records Commission
PRIVATE CORPORATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS
Alabama Power Company
Anonymous
AT&T
Atlantic Electric
Association of Edison Illuminating Companies
Battelle Memorial Institute The Boston Edison Foundation Cabot Corporation Foundation, Inc. Carolina Power & Light Company Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
Consumers Power Company Cooper Industries Corning Incorporated Duke Power Company Entergy Corporation (Middle South Electric System)
Exxon Corporation
Florida Power & Ligit Company
General Electric Foundation
Gould Inc. Foundation
Gulf States Utilities Company
David and Nina Heitz
Hess Foundation, Inc.
Idaho Power Company
IMO Industries
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Mr. and Mrs. Stanley H. Katz Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. Midwest Resources, Inc.
Minnesota Power New Jersey Bell New York State Electric & Gas Corporation
North American Philips Corporation Philadelphia Electric Company Philips Lighting B.V.
Public Service Electric and Gas Company
RCA Corporation
Robert Bosch GmbH
Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation
San Diego Gas and Electric
Savaiuiah Electric and Power Company
Schering-Plough Foundation
Texas Utilities Company
Thomas & Betts Corporation
Thomson Grand Public
Transamerica Delaval Inc.
Westinghouse Foundation Wisconsin Public Service Corporation
A Note on the Sources
The pages which have been filmed are the best copies available. Every technical effort possible has been made to ensure legibility.
PUBLICATION AND MICROFILM COPYING RESTRICTIONS
Reel duplication of the whole or of any part of this film is prohibited. In lieu of transcripts, however, enlarged photocopies of selected items contained on these reels
may be made in order to facilitate research.
LEGAL DEPARTMENT RECORDS CEMENT
This material consists of correspondence, court records, and other items relating to patent interference proceedings and infringement suits and to other legal actions involving the technical development and commercial exploitation of Edison's cement machinery. Included are documents pertaining to Edison's crushing rolls, which were used in both iron ore processing and cement manufacture, and to his invention of a long rotary kiln for making cement.
Less than 10 percent of the documents have been selected. The selected items reflect Edison's personal involvement in legal matters, detail experimental work by Edison or his assistants, or broadly pertain to matters of corporate organization and patent management. Related material can be found in the records of the Edison Portland Cement Co. and the Edison Ore Milling Syndicate, Ltd. (Company Records Series). The documents are arranged in the following order:
Correspondence Interference Proceeding
Shiner v. Edison (No. 27,406)
Case File
Thomas A. Edison and the North American Portland Cement Company v. Aisen's American Portland Cement Works
Correspondence
This folder contains correspondence and other documents concerning a variety of legal matters. The selected documents cover the period 1902-1910. Among the correspondents are Edison; Frank L. Dyer of the Legal Department; Walter S. Mallory, vice president of the Edison Portland Cement Co.; and Edward Dinan, chemist. Included are letters pertaining to the technical development and operation of Edison's long kilns; to cement-related patents assigned to the Edison Ore Milling Syndicate, Ltd.; and to a proposed infringement suit against the Atlas Portland Cement Co. Also included is correspondence relating to the progress of litigation against the Allis- Chalmers Co. and to a possible deposition by Edison regarding the use of pulverized coal in cement kilns.
Interference Proceeding Shiner v. Edison (No. 27,406)
This folder contains material pertaining to a Patent Office proceeding involving an application filed by Edison on January 27, 1906, for a patent on a rotary kiln that he had invented in 1 899 and a competing application by William C. Shiner. The one selected item is Edison's brief on appeal to the commissioner of patents, who ruled in favor of Edison in June 1909.
Case File
Thomas A. Edison and the North American Portland Cement Company v.
Alsen's American Portland Cement Works
This folder contains material pertaining to the infringement suit brought by Edison and the North American Portland Cement Co. against Alsen's American Cement Works in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case was initiated in March 1908 and involved Edison's U.S. Patent 802,631 on long kilns. The court decided against Edison and declared his patent invalid on May 7, 1913. The selected items are from Complainants' Record on Final Hearing and Complainants' Brief on Final Hearing
Legal Department Records Cement - Correspondence
This folder contains correspondence and other documents concerning a variety of legal matters. The selected documents cover the period 1902- 1910. Among the correspondents are Edison; Frank L. Dyer of the Legal Department; Walters. Mallory, vice president of the Edison Portland Cement Co.; and Edward Dinan, chemist. Included are letters pertaining to the technical development and operation of Edison's long kilns; to cement- related patents assigned to the Edison Ore Milling Syndicate, Ltd.; and to a proposed infringement suit against the Atlas Portland Cement Co. Also included is correspondence relating to the progress of litigation against the Allis-Chalmers Co. and to a possible deposition by Edison regarding the use of pulverized coal in cement kilns.
Less than 10 percent of the documents have been selected. Among the items not selected are letters, memoranda, and reports regarding patent research; printed patents; a draft complaint and affadavit for use in the proposed case against the Atlas company; letters of transmittal and acknowledgment; registered mail receipts; and documents that duplicate the information in selected material.
/■ f,J f y
yr/ : f Jf/sz/fv/r/t / .’ y yrz:
\^sZ„.a 'y„,!,//y. . ■/;,/,■„/.& . '////■/>/ y£Zttt>Z
' .;/. .%«■/.
y/w July 7, 1902.
W. S. Mallory, Eb<i. ,
Edison laboratory,
Orange, K.
Dear Mr. Mallory, -
I enclose a copy of a letter dated the 25th ult. just received from the Edison Ore-Milling Syndicate and replying to our letter of the 11th ult. regarding the re¬ assignment of cement patents. I also enclose a copy of the letter from Mr. Lawrence to Mr. Edison referred to in the Syndicate letter. //
JJ7^T'4r^.
rhd/al
Enolosure.’
r
[ATTACHMENT]
Copy of letter and enclosure
from Edison Ore-Milling Syndicate limited
to Dyer, Edmonds & Dyer.
London, W.C. , June 25th 1902.
Messrs. Dyer, Edmonds & Dyer,
31 Nassau Street,
New York.
Dear Sirs,
We are in receipt of your letter of the 11th inst. , asking us to arrange for the reassignment of certain patents, which Mr. Edison has already communicated to us, for the rea¬ son that they relate exclusively to the manufacture of cement.
This matter has been duly considered hy the Board of Directors, and we desire to point out that this subject wa3 discussed as far back as July 1900, when Mr. Edison raised the question whether one particular patent should have been communicated to us.
Mr. Lawrence, the Chairman of this Syndicate, imme¬ diately wrote a long letter to Mr. Edison (copy enclosed) pointing out that it had always been completely understood from Mr. Edison's letters and speeches that this Syndicate was to have the benefit of cement patents and in 1900 Mr. Dick, with Mr. Edison's concurrence and sanction, on behalf of this Syndicate, entered into negotiations in England for the sale of these patents to an important cement combine.
[ATTACHMENT]
There are additional circumstances besides those men¬ tioned in Mr. Lawrence's letter which undoubtedly indicate Mr . Edison's intention to hand over cement patents to this Syndicate, in which he himself is so largely interested.
V/e venture to think therefore that there may be some misunderstanding on your part as to Mr. Edison's wishes in this matter, and we should be much obliged if you would fur¬ ther communicate with him, and in particular draw his atten¬ tion to Mr. Joseph Lawrence's letter to him of the 2nd August 1900, to which we may say that Mr. Edison did not make any reply.
Yours faithfully,
EDISON ORE-MILLING SYNDICATE LIMITED.
J. Hall Jnr.
Enclosure.
Secretary.
[ATTACHMENT]
COPY.
July 19,1900.
Mr. I. Hall, Jr. ,
Seo. Edison Ore Milling Syndicate , Ltd. ,
7 Amberley House, Norfolk Street,
London, W. C. , England.
Dear Sir:-
In reply to your favor of the 6th ult., I heg to state that the patent you speak of was a cement patent, and does not come under the terms of the original contract. All patents coming under the oontraot will be communicated direct to the Syndicate, as has been the case heretofore, those relating to Cement Improvements, whloh owing to their character may not come under the oontraot I will take out direct.
You will be glad to know that the Mills at Edison, N.J. are running regularly except the Bricking plant. Owing to the reoent panic in Iron, the furnaces were overloaded with ore when we started up, so we will not ship briquettes until their surplus ore has been worked down to permit of their reoeiving briquettes.
We are turning out about 300 tons of Concentrate daily and stocking it.
As to the costs of concentrating, we are keeping accounts and hope to give you the results in a couple of months. We are not losing any money even with our 17 per cent crude ore, but how much we are making is an unknown quantity. The Zinc Mill continues to run regularly.
We are progressing rapidly with the Cement Mill.
Yours truly,
Thomas A. Edison,
R.
[ATTACHMENT!
Copy of letter from Mr. Joseph Lawrence to Mr. Thomas A. Edison.
2nd. August 1900.
My dear Edison,
The Secretary of the Edison Syndicate has shown me your letter of the 19th. July in reference to the specifica¬ tion Ho. 3485 of 1900, described as "method of and apparatus for grinding screening and rescreening very fine materials in bulk".
In your letter which although dated the 19th. July, did not reach us until the 31st. (evidently having missed two or three mails), you say this specification "does not come under the terms of the original contract."
The specification is not alone confined to cement, but applies also to iron, the terms being as follows
(A) "An invention relating to an improved method "and apparatus for grinding and screening very fine materials "in bulk such as iron ore, Portland Cement &c. , and to an "improved method of and apparatus for grinding In bulk the "ground and screened material. "
Under these circumstances, I have no doubt that you will see that the Syndicate is entitled to the benefit of this improvement under the terms of the original contract, indeed your patent attorneys, Messrs. Dyer admit as much in their letter to us of the 12th. July, wherein they stato they have v/ritten to their agents, Messrs. Brandon Bros, in Paris,, to look to our agent Mr. Woodroffe as their principal and to
[ATTACHMENT]
take all instructions from him.
You will remember that in all your previous corres¬ pondence and especially in your speech to the shareholders in December last, you admit that the cement rights are 11 con¬ trolled by the Syndicate. " In your speech, after dealing with the cement works and the plant that was being erected, and the improvements that were being made in the same, you go on to urge the shareholders not to part "with any rights "for any purpose whatsoever until these two (cement) mills "have demonstrated commercially the valuable rights controlled "by the Syndicate. " You also go on to say that the "experi- "ments are being paid for from this side, the Syndicate "realizing without expense."
All these circumstances prove, without falling back on the terms of the Contract, that you regard the Syndicate as controlling all the cement rights, which naturally include the Improvements. In the Director's printed report (which was approved by Mr. Dick) which was sent out prior to the meeting, we speak, on the strength of your previous promise, of your communicating to us without cost certain improvements which relate to cement, and also state that "other valuable improvements will, it is promised also be communicated in a similar wayl' We have also, quite recently received four other specifications of new inventions one of which particu¬ larly relates to cement, and we have filed applications in
various countries in respect of them to protect the Syndi- cat e ' s rights .
Yours faithfully,
(Signed.) J. DAv/KJiiiJGE .
7A°/°2/AvsK/r,
Dyer, Edmonds & Dyer,
31 Nassau Street,
Now York.
Dear Sirs: —
X have yours of the 7th Inst, enclosing copy of letter of June 25th, 1902, from the Edison Ore Milling Syndicate (Limited, also copy of letter of August 2nd, 1900, from Mr. Joseph Lawrence, all of which have been oarefully noted.
There is no question but what the Syndicate are entitled to the Cement rights on all machinery which comeB in under the contract, but the machinery and devices designed specially for Cement work and invented after the oontract was made, doaB not go to them without further consideration to me. ^
The patents oovared by yours of June 11th, 1902, were assigned in error and should be re-assigned to me.
Yours very truly,
ZfinutA/: '^"Z'jMzU:
** " ' JAS^„,,^A
Sept. 22, 1902.
Thomaa A. Edison, Esq.,
Orange,^ I
,aJ fci »,*-«? c-^C
OA.t> ^ tCCZZZ
Dear Sir, U) »-C£ (Q-c,c tllU f-D U3s^L. <PW- &-t-s A C-
We have received from Edison Ore Milling Syndicate }\
limited a letter, dated 11th inst., as follows:
"Referring to the question of the assignment of oertain cement patents hy Mr. Edison to the Syndicate, it haB been arranged that the consideration of the mat¬ ter should he postponed until Mr. Dick is next in England, when a settlement satisfactory to all parties can no doubt ho arranged. 11
We assume that this means that an arrangement has heen made
directly with you to this effect.
(ul,(< l /O CcJk
u( KftY /©- 9
(a /“olvj2 ASs . cT-
Ti li pnom n? w.c.
5214,'Gebrard.
Mr T. A. Edison;
Orange
New Jersey',
U. 3. A.
Dear ;Sir,-'
At a Board Meeting of the Syndicate held on the 20th inst, , the discussion regarding certain of your cement patents, which had Been adjourned from the meeting held on the 10th' .September pending Mr Dick's return to England',, was resumed.
Mr Dick fully explained your views with regard- to the cement patents which have been communicated to Us by Messrs Dyer, Edmonds & Dyer and the feeling was at once expressed by "all the Direc¬ tors that there was no wish whatever on our part to ask you to give- us any patent rights to which we are not entitled,;- and which might be considered not to; be covered" by the scope of the original- agree¬ ment, with the Syndicate.
We do not in any way desire to take advantage of the fact that these cement patents have been communicated to us and that we
have filed patent, applications on them here and abroad.
In order to recognise the principle of the ownership of _ the patents the Directors have resolved to' offe'r you a percentage ■ of profits in respect of any patent improvements invented by you oeing used hereafter, such improvements not being covered' by the original contract, and Mr Dick has been asked to consult with yoU on the matter upon his return to the United States.
We trust that you may consider this suggestion a fair ^one and that it may meet your wishes', but the Directors are arutioua. that it should not be felt for ohe moment that there is any" desire on their part to ask for more patent rights than they are entitled to), or Which you may feel willing to place' at their disposal in the interests of ail concerned.
Yours faithfully,
EDISON ORE-MILLING SYNDICATE LTD. ,
' <£> v_. .
7^ T/7^^'
~7o~ •££xj <aCc c* et^,'
^77'^*^ ££<^ <?z^
7#ZZ7~ . -t-t^o.
'•~^*yf /5Z^' /) _ -
^
L- . • DCo^^,
tfi^t^c, ~&C2l^
^■,■7-^^ ~ y-^
^y^rr-^ .t^ZZL
7^-^
/f £<_ £&ezZ^ A^tha.
CT^^-'z-t—^--' y . ' ' « •.:•
<A^ac^c^
COPY.
£
%
Roaster Plant:
Mr. W. H. Ma&on, Supt.,
Edison Portland Cement Co., Stewartsville, N. J.
Dear Sir:-
Dec. 4, 1903
In reviewing the work of the kilns for some time past, it is evident that the speed of rotation of No.l kiln at least, should he lessened; and also that provision he made for changing the speed as desired — with or without interfering with the speed of the chalk feed screw.
The main object we wish to aooomplish is good clink¬ er and more of it. The chief fault of the olinker bo far haB heen insufficient oxidation. The heat, as a rule, has heen sufficient, hut incomplete oxidation has heen repeatedly noticed and latterly it is more evident, since we have heen increasing the output.
Before taking up the case of our kilns, there are to he understood a few general points relative to the reparation of a 'kiln.
Elrst : The speed of the chalk feed sorew determines the
quantity of intake of chalk, and, consequently, the quantity of output of clinker. This is axiomatic, the more chalk you feed to a kiln, the more clinker/you will get.
Second: The speed of rotation of the kiln determines the
length of time required for a given quantity of chalk to come for¬ ward. The faster the kiln rotates, the faster the material is .carried forward, and vice versa.
Mr. W.H.Mason . Sheet Mo.
Third: The burden of a kiln decreases as the speed of ro¬
tation of the kiln increases. That is, the amount of material (the load) in the kiln will he less at a high speed than at a low speed. This is seen from the second statement, and can he illus¬ trated as follows:
Take two bricks, and have two kilns, A and B* kiln A mak¬ ing a revolution in 60 seconds anelB in 30 seconds. Drop a brick . at same time in each kiln. It will require a longer time for the brick to travel through A than through B. The brick will fall out of B first, vfoich is rotating the faster. Mow, if we fed one brick a second into each A and B, bricks would be dumped out of B sometime before they would emerge from A, and yet, at the instant
the first brick dropped out of B, each kiln would have .the same i»uU X't cknnnAs fiXldAjL. O imJ, iviUJL. mdaber of bricks in it. In kiln A, , and at the same rate as from B.
But A would have the heavier burden. There would be more
bricks in it, although now dropping a brick per second, the same
as B, A would be carrying more bricks, and. so have a heavier load;
the bricks would, of course, be piled deeper in the kiln. T
Beturn to the consideration of our kilns. Observations p
on one kiln will serve to illustrate the point in view in this note.
The examination of clinker from kiln Mo. 2 for the past
few days has shown plainiy^tha'need of more oxidation, while^’the '
h
interior, although burned hard enough, was sufficiently oxidized.
On one oocaslbn, on Dec, 3, the circumstances were as follows:
kiln cool; clinker not heated sufficiently, A short time later !
the heat increased; clinker heated hard enough; but insufficient
W.H. Mason
oxidation plainly evident. Had more air admitted, and soon noticed the kiln not so hot as before. Shut off some of the air, regain¬ ed the heat, hut oxidation not yet complete. At this point we had reached the maximum excess of air allowable for the coal being consumed, and the clinker yield was not good. It needed more oxi¬ dation. Now, if the speed of the kiln were out down Blightly, so as to compel the material to remain in the hot, oxidizing atmos¬ phere a longer time, the clinker would have been more thoroughly oxidized; this would be the oase,
Nirst: Because there would be less liability of clinkers
being formed suddenly be^ being rushed forward into the clinkerlng zone, which ocoureB when tbs kiln is running too fast. The main objection to this is that olinker bo formed balls so suddenly as to interfere with the oxidation of their interior. The outside coat¬ ing once formed prevents the oxidation of the interior.
Seoondly: Thorough oxidation is not accomplished in an instant but require b time. How long oannot be exactly said.
These are the main objections to running at a high rate of speed. Of course, too slow a speed might be objectionable, v'' resuTt/'in over-burning, but this would be erring on the side of safety. We could easily remedy that. The olaim is not made that we can put the kiln at a certain fixed speed, to be the beBt tinder all oiroumstanoes, but we do olaim that better result* oan be ob¬ tained by a lesser speed than at present, With a light burden, the kiln oan rotate faster without interfering with good burning; ample
opportunity is there for oxidation in a shorter time, but with a
W.H.Mason
Sheet No. 4
heavy burd.en a given handful of chalk, for inetanoee, has not the same opportunity for complete oxidation that the same quantity of chalk has with a light burden, each handful being subjected to same heat for the same time. In the case of the heavier burden, more time tequired.
To sum up, then, we can say a choice must be made be¬ tween these two conditions:
First: A given chalk feed; kiln rotating at a given rapid
rate and a lighter burden* The material is in the heat a shorter time, and the olinker formed more suddenly.
Second: The same given chalk feed; kilm rotating at a lesser
speed; the burden greater. The material is in the heat a longer time, and the olinker formed more gradually.
The choice must be between these two. What advan¬ tages are there in the first oase?
As a rule, in’ any metallurgical or chemical reaction where we wish to have formed some new product by combining two or more ingredients, particularly where heat is required, better re¬ sults are obtained by bringing about the reaction slowly. Sudden and violent plunging of materials into heat may serve to disinte¬ grate (and that is a good way to do it), but not to combine.
Faulty combinations oan also readily ensue from clinkering too suddenly, even though the chalk mixture be correct as a whole. In clinker formed suddenly, the union of the partioles may take place; but the complete combination or reaction of the moleoules is not facilitated.
I
W.H.Mason — Sheet Ho. 5.
These are the principal reasons submitted in argument for a provision for a slower speed of kiln* Many other /points of a detailed nat4ure might be advanoed in favtr of it, but, belleveing the pbint sufficiently oovered by the above, 1 am, You re truly ,
(signed) E. P. Bulan
PS, - Requires 1 hr. 40 min, for passage of briok through the kiln; from aotual observation - by W.E.M. l/25/04«
copy
The Edison Portland Cement Co,
Edison Laboratory, Orange, N.J.12/ll/03/
taeA.
Mr. W. H. Maeon, Sup’t.,
Stewartsville , N, J.
Lear Sir:-
Mr. Linan's observations of the Kiln received.
1st, I do not quite understand what he means by "Insuffi¬
cient oxidation". Loes lie-mean the clinker is not oxidised? I have always understood that if the temperatures were high enough all the reactions will take place , and they will take place at the same temperature whether there be an oxidising or reducing temperature, that the clinker if in highly oxidising atmosphere will be reddish black from oxygen combining tb'. raise the iron to the ferric state, this is shown when greenish clinker is held in BunBen flame. On the contrary, if the gas is reducing the clinker will go to the green ferrous stage.
I will give several reasons why I think high speed is the best condition to produce large putput in our kilns, say 2 revolutions per minute, but they are only arguments and theory and very little reliance should be placed on them in view of the fact that we have every means to experiment and let results bring out the proper theory and method.
Arguments for high speed.
' 1st. Lighter load per foot hence pressure on itself in
sticky state will cause it to ball less or if balled the mass will be more porous. A sticky mass 6 inches thick will have a pressure on the bottom iayer due to the weight at that height; if one foot thick it will have twice the psessure, hence the tendency to ball up is greater and in addition the extra weight acting on what is balled will make it more dense by continuous pounding by its ovm in¬ creased weight. In addition, when the larger masses enter the strong clinkering zone they will break up into finer balls if the load is 6 inches thati-they would if the load was 12 inches as the porosity will be less in the latter case. Therefore, if the balls are larger and in addaition more dense, they will not burn ti-o the centre so rapidly hence the heavy load balls will require more time .
2nd. The passage of brick through the kiln is not criter¬
ion of the speed of the chalk and clinker for the reason that a brick can only progerss by the action of the angle of the kiln,
Mr. W.H.M.
whereas the chalk on account of hulk, air ani. explusion of C03 blowing up and the. fomation of the ring at chalk and produce a congestion and raise the angle line far above the normal grade of the balance of the stock and there is continual avalanches of ma¬ terial which causes it to advance twenty to fifty feet in a single revolution of the kiln, whereas the brisk would not more but a few inches; now with a fixed load, if you slow the kiln to half, the chalk hill doubles in altitude and the tendency and distance in which the stock will avalanche ahead is greatly increased and proceeds so far into the clinkering zone that it gives off C02 to disturb the proper combustion of the coal, for the reason that coal will not burn at all when the proportions of CO to C02 reaches 33 volumes of CO to 66 volumes' of C02, no matter if you have plenty of oxygen just as in a blasjr furnace KhaaixJthRxkiststfcxSsr- jaasus when the vbihumes of CO to C02 as stated, is reached no fur¬ ther reduction of iron ore can take place. Therefore, to get good economy, good combustion and high tempenature , it is very desirable that the principle proportion of the C02 should be driven off be¬ fore it gets hear the clinkering zone, but the avalancing movements prevents it, the greater the load, the greater the avalanching and projection of unprepared chalk into the clinkering zone to disturb your combustion, lower the temperature and produce badly burned clinker.
3d: Now if the chalk ring formed at chalk end builds up to the same height with a light load as it does with a heavy load, then there would be no gain in speeding the kiln when the chalk feed was constant because the avalanching will be just the same, and the principal resaofi. f or speeding would be nullified and these ar¬ guments fall to the ground.
4th: Could the formation of this ring be prevented there would not be any avalanching Toy£& steady even progression of the stock and at 2 revolutions per minute there would be ample time for the heat to penetrate to the centre of the balls on account of the long zone of high temperature , cement clinker is very good conductor of he&tY-the centre of cube of one inch will reach that of the outside in a few minutes, and the reason so many come through th e kiln with centres which have never reached the temperature
of low "temper at ure" chalk rusnell Y6rTtop of it by the avhlancheaat times get excessive it brings so much C02 into the combustion one that you will lose your heat no matter how much coal you put on.
We will be met by this mechanical difficulty every time we try to increase the load beyond a certain point in our kilns, say 30 to 32 barrels beyond that amount the avalanche will project itself further into the combust! organa limit the output by making it impossible to burn the coal by the C02 produced, and the only way to increase the ouput is to stop or reduce the avalanching at the back ring and I told Mason to speed the kiln upon the theory that the height of the ring and load would be less and . thus re¬ duce the avalanches so the greater load can be carried.
6th. The time required to burn cement i& purely a ques¬
tion of temperature and heat conductively of the mass; and inch cube can be burnt perfectly to the centre in twenty minutes in a gas furnace if its attempted to burn it in less time -by raising the tenperature, the outside will start to melt. I do not. think it would be burned any better if it was in an hour. The reactions are not forced reactions except exclusion of C02, they would take place at ordinary temperature of themselves if they were viscous. ■ The only functions performed by heat after explusion of C02 is to ‘ soften their ingredients so their molecules can act. When this soft atage is reached the reactions can take place, any increase in the softening does no good. The finer ground the materials are, the less the softening required aid the lower the temperature: if the particles are corase ground, it would be necessary to raise tlrthe clinker to a semi-fluid condition to get combination of the coarser particles'.
Could the gun be used at the chalk end to break up the ring and stop or reduce avalanching, you could easily raise the output but I suppose this is not practicable.
Yours truly.,
Sigd. Thos. A. Edison
COPY
Jan. 8, 1904.
Kilns:
Mr. W. H. Mason, Supt.,
The Edison Portland Cement Co.,
Stewartsville, N. J.
Pear Sir:-
The letter of Mr. Edison's relative to the operation of the kilns, contains, besides much valuable information a few statements which do not 'quite agree with results we have sot f dree", obtained with the kilns. As well as not quite conforming to demon- strat wire suit s , hitherto obtained in general practice. Neither can I see how. they can stand theoretically, and wish to call your attention. to the same. It is agreed, of course, that it is best to let actual ptaatiiaib results being out the best methods.
The insufficient oxidation of clinker mentioned .
' *•**>.,, "■ . : ; in letter of December 4, 1903, applied to the interior of the clink¬ er chiefly. This fault of the clinker has been the case on differ-, ent occasions, and as was before stated^ is be li eyed due to the rate at which the material is propelled through the kiln. The exterior of the clinker in nearly all cases was sufficiently oxidized, i.e. the reactions were .completed. The interior in many cases was not.
Iii some' >cases the exterior showed the effect- of prolonged heating ..after formation and; had a. thin reddish brown coating. In the clink-, er with faulty interior the combination of the lime with silica and
YT.H.M . 2 1-8-04.
alumina is not complete; the sulphur present in some cases existing as sulphide of lime which should, not be. Such sulphur should be. converted to suplhate of lime. To do this, requires oxygen, necessitating air, and it takes time to do it. It must be understood that to make Portland Cement clinker, an oxidizing at¬ mosphere is necessary, together with a high temperature.
Take good clinker and heat in the Bunsen flame, in either the oxidizing or reducing part, and a reddish fcrown color will be noticed on the surface. Note that this takes place in either the oxidizing or reducing flame of the Bunsen bunner. I believe it to be nothing more than a separation of the ferric oxide, due to the heating, from whatever state of combination in which it may have been. Supposing the greenish colored clinker has ferrous iron ■which can be changed to ferric iron, this does not prove that all the iron in that clinker is ferrous iron. The fact is, practical¬ ly none is found in the cement, so it could hardly have been in the clinker.
There is a time when some of the dfcbnkis in the ferrous state. This is when ferric oxide is uniting to silica. In the chalk iron exists under the two conditions, ferrous and ferric, chiefly in the latter state. In much of the rock of this xection, or belt, sulphide of iron is present; .it can easily be seen with the naked eye. This much alone could account f on the ferrous iron. There could also be present ferrous silicate, but likely very little of it. The most of it is in the ferric form. Cer¬ tainly some of this ferric oxide reacts with the selica, even in • the presence of the large quantity of lime. It is an established fact that ferric oxide and silica cannot, unite directly. Berric
W.H.M . 3. 1-8-04.
oxide must first break down to the ferrous state which it does by heat, according to this equation Pe2<)3 s gPeO +■ 0. The fer¬ rous oxide then united with silica to form the different silicates of iron. At this stage the presence of ferrous iron is accounted for but this could hardly apply throughout the whole piece of clin- . ker .
The uni-ferrous silicate melts at about the melting point of cast iron; when suddendly cooled it forms into crystals of dark olive green color. The bi-ferrous silicate melts at about the melting point of steel; it is flesh colored when cooled. The tri-ferrous silicate is still less fusible, remaining viscous at a white heat.
We are more likely to have the uni-silioate or the bi¬ silicate. Note that the colors are olive green and flesh colored, colors noticed at times on the outside clinker. It also requires ' quite a high heat to bring about the reactions of ferric oxide and silica. Also ferrous silicates readily decompose in the air yielding ferric oxide and silica.
Now remembering the great preponderance of lime over oxide of iron, to react with the silica; the small percentage of oxide of iron present; the fact that practically all the iron present is in the. ferric state; and the difficulty attendant upon the reaction of the ferric oxide with silica, it bein£ performed in the case of Portlahd Cement clinker, in an oxidizing atmosphere, the chances are that very little silicate of iron is present, and it cannot readily be understood if the oxygen of the air in a short time can decompose ferrous silicate, why the highly oxidizing heat
Mln. doggLngt accomplish this almost. -Irmtarrhl-u-. „ i„m.^
V.H.JJ. . 4.
very little chance for the presence of ferrous iron in the clinker, it could he believed that some ferrous iron might re suit from. the partial combustion of coal in contact with it, coloring the exter¬ ior hut we have first to get proof that the iron is present in the ferrous state. From the fact that the uhi-ferrous silicate is olive green colored; and that clinker is olive green colored, it does not follow that the iron in the clinker is in the ferrous state; there are other substances in the clinker besides the iron and the silica to modify the color.
Such of the ferrous oxide as doe s react with the silica acts as an oxygen carrier, giving up an atom of oxygen for every molecule of ferric oxide reacting, as noted in the equation Fe203 s 2 .FeO 4- 0. For want of a better explanation, it is taken, by some that this atom of oxygen unites with a molecule of lime;
Ca 0+0 m Ca 02, forming dioxide of calcium. Believing it to be easier t b ixidize ferrous iron then to oxidize lime toc*4<*4ȣ>- dioxide it is not more likely that the oxygen goes immediately to ferrous iron and oxidizes it or else the most easily oxidized substance present, which is not lime?
The statement was made that .the clinker were insufficient¬ ly oxidized, meaning the reactions were .not completed; their interiors were soft and contained material like what you find im¬ mediately beyond (speaking from the coal end) the ppint of incip¬ ient clinkering, where the coating begins to adhere to the lin¬ ing; sulphur was present as calcium sulphide; and less and less evidence of reaction as you observe from the surface towards
W.H.M. ii)... 5
-towwrffs the centre of the clinker, which was soft, and. dark brown to light colored. Such is a description of the worst cases which are partly due to hurried heating at the time of first adhesion particularly.
Also this variety of clinker: outside appearnce satis¬ factory; hard and crystalline coating; proceeding inwards through a piece say: 3" - 4" diameter, we see a half inch shell of accep-- fable clinker; next half inch not so dark in color nor as crys¬ talline as the exterior. Proceed father towards the centre and you will find the mass hard enough perhaps but the structure instead of being crystalline is massive; it is also light in color. The very centre perhaps is still lighter irj color. A piece of this interior on further heating will darken and show crystals, look more like clinker.
While Mr. Edison has his arguments for high speed of. kiln divided under different heads, the underlying idea seems to be that he wishes to avoid the formation of the chalk ring at any rate avoid the sudden avalanching of chalk toward the coal end.
Let it be understood we do not favor the avalanching of the chalk towardsth§ecoal; also that vie wish to avoid the formation of chalk- ring and to attain this it is believed a slower speed will accomplish this better than the present high speed.
His first argument for high speed is that thereby we will have less trouble from the clinker balling. He' holds, a re¬ lation exists between depth of load and formation of balls. That the greater the load of material in the kiln, the deeper the bed of material, and the greater the tendency to ball. This might
W.H.M/ . 6
all te well if the large clinker halls were formed entirely from smaller ones, by a ball rolling about and gathering smaller pie¬ ces; or e.g. like drops of mercury running together. The clink¬ er balls are not formed in this way. Sometimes with a very hot kiln a larger sized ball, say 10" or more, in diameter, will take up small sized clinker, by rolling over the latter, causing the adhesion; bujr you would not increase the diameter of a ball 3" by this method. It might coat up for one larger with small balls, but not for any more. The adhesion is too weak. You- can readily note such adhered clinkers on the coo led ball after leav¬ ing the kiln.
It is safe to say that in nearly every case balling is
directly due to the composition of the raw materials and not to
the depth of load in the kiln.
Balling takes place as readily with a light load as with a heavy load. I notice that on December 10, 1903, the burners complained of the material balling somewhat and we were then running on a light load of chalk. Again y/e usually did not have trouble with balls even though running on heavy loads. Furthermore the balling begins before being clinkered i.e. about 25' from the coal end. They come towards the coal end already formed and do not grow by taking on layers of clinker to any appreciable extent. Look at their structure and this can be seen. At about lif.5' from .the ■"
coal end was fouod the first evidenoe of material gathering; small
accretions, the size of a corn and easily crushed with the finger, they were all intermixed with -the bulk of the soft chalk. Coming toward the coal end, the accretions grew in size until about 35' from the front end (coal) where there were some as large as a fist
W.H.M . 7
although still soft and could he crushed in the hand. There v/as still present some loose chalk. At about 25' from the coal end, the accretions had hardened more and shrunk somewhat although Btill smooth. Here they must have become plastic as the coating on the kiln lining begins at about 20 to 25' from the codl end. At 15' from the coal end, the balls have shrunk still. more; are harder and rougher and definitely formed; some showing cracks as if separating into two- smaller balls.
Any balls formed therefore have their origin along about 35* from the coal end, and they, do not grow appreciably by adhering to already formed clinker. You may remember we never had any trouble from balls forming whenever -Tb-Smuy-we shut down the kiln to patch it by allowing a bed of clinker lie over a hole. The clinker rolled about and came out as uayal immediately on start¬ ing the klin. Some clinker, of course, stuck all along where the clinker came in contact with the coating. This formed a rougher bed' in which some of the later clinker was caught on revolving the kiln; some of it adhered after becoming soft and plastic.
I know that the composition of the raw materials has the most to do with the balling. Ordinarily speaking the higher the percentage of lime the lesser the tendency to ball. A chalk in which the correct percentage of lime 75 gives clinker of the proper size and grade. To increase the percentage of lime <say to 76.5# w would result in the formation of smaller sized clinker. To re¬ duce the percentage of lime say to 73.5# would cause the clinker to form in large balls. It. does not of course fdllow that this
W.H.M,
would be the result from day to day hut what has been said applies to the one mixture. One day we could run a chalk of 76 fa carbon¬ ate of lime and find that the clinker balled pretty badly. The next day we could run in another..! mixture ..gay 73.5^ carbonate of lime and the clinker be of the usual size. Other elements than the lime and silica enter into it, chief among which is the alumina. But any more of this will be foreign to this letter, to the substance of which let us return after again stating that the balling cannot be connected with the depth of load of material in the kiln.
The passage of a brick through the kiln was not given. to illustrate th e rate travel of the chalk through the kiln. Bricks were mentioned simply in demonstrating that the speed of the kiln had nothing to do with the quantity of output; to prove that it was the rate of feeding -that controlled the quantity of output.
In Mr. Edison's letter, the statement is made in speaking of the avalanching of the chalk that "with a fixed load, if you slow the kiln to half, the chalk hill doubles its altitude;, and the tendency and distance in which the stock will avalanchf- ahead is greatly increased, etc."
In the first place , I do not think the chalk hill would be doubled, with double the load. Also it is very clear to see that material could hardly be projected as far forward with a slow speedas with a high speed. Whatever avalanching of chalk does
W.H.M.
movement; when finally enough lias collected to flow over the ring, which is irregular in diameter, that part nearest the coal end lunges forward forming a path as it were for all behind it, easily slipping along on its own bed. Now if the kiln is not revolved so rapidly there will be more material in the kiln to take up the heat passing along to the stack, and the place ijhere the Go2 is driven off will not be so definitely marked as it is at present. Neither will the chalk ring be so definite; it- can be expected to be spread out more through the length of the kiln; it will not be so abrupt. This structure of it together with the slower revolution of the kiln will cause the chalk to advance more gradually and not to plunge into the combustion portion of the kiln so suddenly as it nov; does. If for no other reason than to remedy the last mentioned trouble which we now have, why not try it at a SLower speed?
The statement of Mr. Edison' s that "coal will not burn hb all when the proportions of Co to Co2 reaches 33 volumes of Co to 66 volumes of Co2, no matter if you have plenty of oxygen" can hardly be true for al} percentage of oxygen present. Probably coal could not be burned where the aboVe mentioned gases consti¬ tute all the atmosphere; but certainly if you added more and more oxygen or air, the percentage of the total sum of Co and Co 2 would become less and less until finally they would constitute such a relatively small percentage of the whole that coal would burn. I I am hot prepared to say at what percentage of air or oxygen this combust ion would take place, but that portion of Mr. Edison's
V/.H.M . 10
declaration "no matter if you have plenty of oxygen" unlimited as it is, cannot he accepted.
Again he says thaf'no further reduction of iron can take place" speaking of the above mentioned relative proportions of Co and Co2 in blast furnace gases. This may be very true, but, its citation here hardly helps what he is attempting to protfve, ' diffi culty of conbustion of coal with the above mentioned propor¬ tions of gases mentioned. If iron cannot be reduced, with those conditions, then the atmosphere must be oxidizing, or neutral, to say the least. If that is the case with iron, it is so because the coal is then .burning more completely than it should for the reduction of the oxides of iron in the ore. It must also be borne in mind •fhat at the temperature of melted pig iron, and somewhat less, Co2 is oxidizing to iron, and if it becomes too excessive in the blast furnace gases% the atmosphere there will no longer be re¬ ducing but the opposite. So thafcfdr the blast furnace it is a case of two complete combustions of coal-deriving too much oxygen from the air and not enough from the.oxidfe of iron in the ore.
Also remember, that the action of the blast furnace is one of reduction whereas the action \ n I ir i =3S^r<" of the rotary kiln is one of oxidation. In the case of the blast furnace, it must be reducing to reduce the iron from the oxide of iron. The rotary kiln, an oxiding atmosphere is required; we want ho reducing action. And if it were immaterial whether the atmosphere beoxidizing or re¬ ducing, it would of cpyrse be economy to burn our coal completely,. ' to do which an excess of air is required. So even if it were not nece SBary we would do it at any rate.
W.H.M . . 11
It must be borne in mind that the two operations ate the exact antithesis of each other, reducing iron in the blast furnace and forming clinker in the rotary kiln. The one product is a re- duopd metal while the other should be a series of. oxides in as high
,0> Toiti^yn. , ■***■£"*£
as state of oxidation as^the blastfurnace gases are ^reducing. Compare the analysis of the one to the other.
Rotary kiln gases taken from a 60* Akiln while "working good. Co-0. 2^; Co2 = 10.2^;0=11.8^; Na77.8^.
Note the percentages of Co and Co2 also the larger excess of oxygen, indicating & iarge excess of air and of course consequent loss of heat.
Blast furnace gases under good working; average composition of good working: Co .27^; Co2 * 14.5^; N s 58. 5^
One sfcngle case: Co > 23.7 fe\ Co2 . 13.7^; N . 63.1^
Note the percentage of Co and Co2 and of course no free oxygen (The relative volumes of Co and Co2 mentioned in Mr. Edison's letter are simply reversed.)
The. rotary, kiln gases will support combustion. The blast furnaces gases will not; but can be .burned. They are exactly . opposite. Indeed the blast furnace gases might be used to burn Portland cement clinker. How then can combustion of coal in one pdseebe cited as an illustration of proper, working in the other case?
Concerning the length of the time required for the inter¬ ior of a one inch cube to become as hot as the outside, it may req¬ uire but a few minutes but as explained before, air or oxygen xA^. required also. Mr. Edison says tlul- reason so many clinkers come through the kiln with centres which have never reached the tempera-
W.H.M . 12.
tureof the zone, is that the outs ide 'HAS continually reaching coatings of low te mperature chalk". How does this account for the fact that we have had such soft centre clinkers when there was no chalk ring noticeable and certainly no avalanching of chalk?
And usually when we did have such chalk avalanching, the clink¬ ers had a rusty appearance on the outside and did not necessarily ' have soft centres. If soft centres were due to cold coatings of ohalk, we could not expgct the clinker to have such a good crystal¬ line exterior which it often has with soft centres. With the load of clinker extending fully fifteen feet from the coal end, we have gotten soft centered clinker. The claim is made to explain the formation of such clinker; the soft clinker ball existing at about 35' from the coal end it advances for about ten fleet through what I believe to be the most critical part of the operation at a too rapid rate for the interior to be properly burned; a somewhat hardO er shell is formed during its travel of this distance preventing the free burning of the interior and the. coating or outside shell becoming harder and harder as it ccmes on through the laBt twenty five feet of the kiln to the coal end; the chance of the interior becoming burned thoroughly is lessened as it nears the coal end; practically no chance after it has come to within ten feet of the coal end. I consider that portion of the kiln from the time you find the surface of the balls taking on the least degree of evenness and cohesion up to and including that portion of the kiln where the shell begins to show indentations due to the first shrinkages, to be the most vital or if I may say, the most critical.
W.H.M . 13,
Hurried through this zone faulty combinations may ensue; its cer¬ tainly does no good to hurry it. If the atmosphere has nothing to do with the formation fif correct cement clinker and if the centre of an ordinary piece of clinke.r becomes heated to the same degrees $s the exterior in a few minutes, why then does not the clinker for¬ med at twenty feet frdra the coal end, beoxuoe completely and correct¬ ly formed in its travel through this twentj^the hottest part of the kiln, consuming 12 to 15 minutes time? Air is needed, and if you have reached the maxium amount allowable then there remains more time which can readily be given it; prolong the time for action of heat and air, i.e., slow the kiln. Slowly revolving the kiln, beings about the reactions more gradually, which surely cannot be a detriment and there is less liability of faulty combinations ensuing Suppose we had two chalks (A) with following percentages in the different rocks, constituting: cement rocks of two classes: in one silica = 19 f* another rock silica » 15^. The carbonate
mixed with the above containing 2 fo silica. (B)cement rock of two kiidJ-s; one had silica = 16^; the other 14^. The carbonate had 1C$£ silica. Each chalk mixture mad e so as t & have the same com¬ positions empirically and ground to the same degree of fineness. Heating each alike skill not give clinker of exaltly like composition structurally. The more quickly they are formed the less will be their resemblence. Certain it is, if formed slowly and gradually they can be brought into closer similarity in every respect.
It-might be argued that the clinkers would be the same in every respect, but it is not true. Without going into details,
W.H.M . 14.
consider chalk A at 35' from coal in one kiln. Chalk B at 35' from coal end in another kiln. Kilns exactly alike ;i:. all other conditions similar. At what distance from the coal end do they become alike?
But of this more will be said again, details of this not being per¬ tinent to the question herein involved. Suffice to say for th'e present that they can be made to more closely resemble each other by causing them to react more gradually.
It was not meant to have the clinker heated tfl sof.tening for any great length of time. After the clinker is once formed completely further heating serves only to deteriorate it, slagging
it in fact, if heated too long, destroying its hydraulic properties like
and rendering it/so much glass as far as setting properties are c oncerned. You may remember that we had some "Dead" cement short¬ ly after we began manufacturing last October. This was due to the overburning of the clinker. By the statement of violent manufact¬ ure, which I mentioned was meant relatively violent, and it applied chiefly to the reactions in the critical zone of the kiln. 1 believe, however, if the materials were held in the plastic state for an hours duration there would be separation of the mole¬ cules and some further changes not ordinarily to be had in clinker. But we do claim that slow fornation of the clinker gives better re¬ sults than that formed more quickly. Take any two chemical com¬ pounds, you almost invarible secure a more stable resulting pro¬ duct by causing them to react gradually, the slower the better^, Hjtrrying the reaction does not tend to form the most stable ^compounds
Or to give a more practical case of manufacture, Mr.
Edison went to the iron industry to cite Instances in establishing
W.H.K....;... 15
A^-kCo , kHz JLuGtfjU /Wj4*rv«-<i. ifc&jL. irta^k. . "W>J- jv^ad^-^- °f •
certalnjilast furnace is pig iroirwhich we wish to convert into
steel. The two chief ways 6f doing this are the Bessemer and Open Heafcth methods. The one requires about 12 minutes during time of reaction. The other requires about two hours during time of reaction. We then have two steels, Bessemer and Open Hearth, and I believe it is generally conceded even in cases of identical com¬ position that Open Hearth steel is better in every respect than •Bessemer. More time is consumed during its formation, during the vital period of its construction. This is not only the generally ' accepted opinion among engineers and manufacturers, but is supported by metal lurgists , as Metcalf, Campbell and others.
Or better still, stay right in our line of business, the cement industry. Note the reactions of the cement itself. A cement which sets slowly, is generally speaking, strohger and better than a quicker setting cement. More time is required during its crit¬ ical/action with the water. The slower the batter.
In conclusion, let it be said a permanent and fixed slow speed is not wanted , , to be the best, but the above arguments and refutations of statements are made in defense of more slowly burned clinker.
Concerning the much mentioned avalanching of chalk, I must say I have not noticed as much of it as I have heard of. I have seal it at times, in one instance sufficient to be serious; but I hard¬ ly think it is guilty of all the accusations against it. There are about a half dozen or more factors entering into the formation of
clinker i and all the faulty have been put to two or three factors . only, let me ask how can you expect the same reactions to take place vrith chalk feed screw at say 60 R.P.M., and kiln makes a revo¬ lution in 35 sedaids in one instance; and in another have the chalk feed at 90 R.P.E. with the kiln at same speed, the chalk the same in each case? It is impossible.
Finally it is understood that some of the defects due to imperfect clinker can be in a manner atoned for by fine grinding ' and by stprage of the resulting cement. However, healing this penance may be, innocence is the more desirable.
For stability in any thing, build slowly.
Yours truly, ■
(signed) Edward Dinan,
e.p.d.
Chemi st ,
^y/AprU 28th»_I904J_ _
Mr. Thos. A. Edison,
Orange, H. J.
Dear Sir:-
I was in Philadelphia yesterday with Mr. Gerstell, Vice President of the Alpha Portland Cement Co., and visited Howson & Hows on, patent lawyers, also Mr. Pusey, the lawyer whom the Alpha have retained. We
application of Mr. Roseherry e
(which was refused1) i myself in the year 189a. about 5 months
previous to the Atlas making application. We retained Howson & Howson to work on this case with Mr. Pusey, and in talking over things, both Mr. Howson and Mr. Pusey were of the opinion that it would have great bearing with, the Judge if you would give your personal opinion. These two lawyers,, with Duncan & Duncan, of Hew York, who are the lawyers for the Atlas Co. , would be willing to come to Orange and meet you at your laboratory and take your testimony. It would hot be necessary for you to go into Court.
I think you will realize that it is very necessary that we should all do out utmost to win this fight, as it would effect all of us materially should the Atlas obtain judgement in their favor. May I not
write Howson & Howson and Mr. Pusey and' inform them that a meeting at your laboratory-. : y to take $&stlmqnytwill be satisfactory? This would
II)
Sheet #2
probably he arranged for some day next week, or week after. Awaiting your reply, I am.
LEHIGH PORTLAND CEMENT CO.,
Mr. Thos . A. Edison. 4/28/1904.
Atlas Co. vs. Alpha Co.
‘ Kr. Charles A. Matcham,
Mgr. Lehigh Portland Cement Co., ' Allentown, Pa.
Dear sir:-
April 29, . 1904
Your favor of the 28th inBt. has "been referred to me. Mr. Edison is entirely willing to give you a deposition in the suit if , in his opinion, he could. do thi3 effectively. Por this pur¬ pose, he suggests that you should send me a copy of 3uch testimony as may have already been taken, together with copies, of such pa¬ tents and publications as you may rely on to invalidate the Hurrey and Seaman iJatent, in order that 1 may look into the case and ad¬ vise him of its present situation.
Yours very truly,
-PLD /m.
Atlas Co, Suit. May 10, 1904.
Thomas A. Edison, Esq.,
Orange, H. J. <
Dear Sir:-
Suit lias teen brought by the Atlas Company against the Martins Creek Portland Cement Company, but the defense is evi¬ dently being handled by the Lehigh and Alpha Companies.
The defendants make use of a coal burning apparatus wherein air pressures of from 4 to 8 ounces are used supplied by a Root blower. The Hurry and Seaman patent Ho. 645, 031 of March 6th, 1900 describes a high pressure apparatus, the patent re¬ ferring to "20 pounds to the square inch, or thereabout". The under-lying feature of the invention is in injecting a core of pulverised rcoai and air insufficient to support combustion and draw¬ ing into the kiln a surrounding envelope of hot air to make the combustion perfect. The patent says: “So far as we are aware, we are the first to successfully and practically burn. cement material into cement-clinker by the use of pulverized carbonaceous fuel in- jeoted into the rotary furnace by means of an air-jet". So far - aB I can determine, this statement is correct, and the Hurry & Sea¬ man patent does, in fact, represent the first suggestion of the use of pulverized fuel in arotary cement kiln. The Atlas people, . therefore, are seeking to have the patent construed as broadly cov-
T.A.E. 2,
ering all rotary cement 3d. Ins in which pulverized fuel is injected longitudinally of the kiln, the necessary air to support combust¬ ion heing dravaniin by the injeotive action of the blast and by the natural draught through the kiln. “The defenses which are being urged are:
. Eirst - irone-infringement. (a) Because the patent must be
limited to a process using a high pressure like that produced by a piston compressor as distinguished from a low pressure produced by a fan or blower, (b) because the patent' is limited to a separate
combustion chamber connected with bjit independent of the kiln it-
’
self and (c) because with a low pressure blast there is more or less impingement.
1 Second - lack of invention, (a) Because; the desirability of securing a heating effect in an open space by radiation rather than by impingement of the flame on the material treated, has been recognized ever since 'the invention of the Siemens regenerative furnace, (b) because in vie-W of the prior suggestions of burning gas or oil the possibility of burning pulverized fuel in the same way would be obvious and (c) because pulverized fuel has in fact been burned in other furnaces, and no invention would be required i to use it in a rotary cement furnace.
So far as the defenses (b) and (c) on the question of non- infringement are concerned, I think they are’ without force, since ' there seems to' be no evidence that there is impingement of the flame in the defendants* apparatus, nor does the separate oombustion
chamber appear to be regarded In the patent as essential. It 1b possible that the Court might limit the patent to a high pressure device and thereby all|| the present defendants to escape, but this would evidently not help the Edison Company.
The defense of lack of invention may be persuasive, al¬ though the fmant who first accomplishes the desirable result is favorably considered by the Courts. Yet if it could be shown that whenj the price of oil was increased, the use of pulverized coal was immediately taken up that fact would indicate a degree of ob- •yiousness.
°n the whole, I am impressed with two things, first, that this is a very dangerous case and, second, that Mr. Duncan, attor- 1 ney for the Atlas Cos® any, is an ’exceptionally able man in this art and very much more familiar with the subject that' Mr. Pusey, who represents the defendants. There is the danger in your giving a deposition that, going into t&e base that you are not familiar With the details of and without full preparation, admissions Mght be secured by Mr. Duncan, which would embarrass you in the Went of a suit against your Company. On the other hand, a deposition tf*om you would carry great weight because of your reputation and ofyour familiarity with the art. Even if the patent is not invalidated but if the suit is decided against the Atlas Company ohithegrourrk of, non-infringement, there would always be a certain moral weakness in the Atlas case. It was therefore undoubtedly a tactical mistake the part of Mr. Duncan to bring the suit against a low pressure
I
T.A.E. 4.
apparatus rather than against a high pressure apparatus. Should you give a deposition it ought not, in ay opinion, go beyond these points:
1. A reference to the well recognized engineering practice of securing a heating effect by radiation as originally suggested by Siemens.
2. An expression of your opinion that in view of the use of oil and gas, the employment of pulverized coal would be obviouB.
3. The well recognized possibility of using a blast of pul¬ verized coal as a substitute for gas or a blast of oil.
A deposition strictly confined to these points could not, to my mind, be hurtful, although if you read the cross-examination by Mr. Duncan of the witnesses Gerstell, prenail and Brooks, you will see the kind of a cross-examination that you will undoubtedly be subject to.
Yours very truly,
eed/mm.
Hurry & seamen Patent.
Mr. Henri Hatch,
i 5 Sheridan Square, '
. Hew York City.
Dear Mr. Hatch: -
Your favor of the 20th inst. lias "been received.
I think you will find all work in connection with powdered coal to lae subsequent to 1866 and possibly later than 1880. I don't quite understand the distinction which you draw between "coal dust" and “powdered coal". Of|course, if the dust carries considerable quantities of slate and other, non-carbonaoeous material it would not answer the purpose, but otherwise X see no distinction between coal in a natural pulverulent form and 'coal which has been purpose¬ ly powdered.
TRe Edison Portland Cement (g.
Telegraph and Passenger Station, NEW VILLAGE, N. J.
P. O. Address, STEWARTSVILLE, N. J.
June 23, 1904.
Literature, etos
Mr. Irani L. Dyer,
Edison laboratory,
Orange , N. J.
Dear Sir:-
Under separate cover, I am sending you today, such literature as I expect to he of use to you in your studies on the rotary kiln. X will leave them in your own good care as long as you '/risk and v/ill he pleased to furnish you any others which come tn my notice. Also should you at any time come to any reference to a technical paper, have in mind that I live close to the Lehigh University Library, vhich is open day and ni^ht^iid° where most of the leading technical j ournals can he reached.
You will note the interesting figures on pa&e 68, Vol. 12, Ho. 5; conpare with the results obtained at the Alpha Plant. Newburry took care to allow no coal to be blown in while cooling. At any rate you will see how far forward the raw material travels undecomposed.
^et, a clear conception of the changes occuring to the chalk during its passage through the kiln. The Ash of the coal is not con¬ sidered in the case cited; it will have its effect, although it is slight. Note that 100 lbs., chalk gives about 64 pounds clinker and 36 pounds gas.
Hare are a few thoughts on the subject as a whole j Old stationary kiln pmctice with heating like in a limekiln, consumes as low as only 50 pounds coal per barnl cement.
Hrom i,athhury & S packman, cement Engineers, of Philadelphia,
I read under the description of what they term their type of .rotary kiln (1902) (ordinary 80' kiln like any other).
"The capacity and coal consumption of a rotary kiln Varies with its size and nature of the raw materials burned, the fonaar being frcm 126 to 200 pounds cement per day of 24 hours, the latter from 100 pounds to 175 pounds per barrel of cement produced."
Best 60* practice cannot come under. 105 pounds. I note" figures a few years ggo, for 60' kiln; 200 in 24 hours; 134
pounds coal.
The 100 and 105 pounds you hear of is the bestrXuu^
Book at 60* kiln and you notice regilar puffings, continuously i& i the smoke rolls out and then for a moment at intervals of 6 to 8 seconds it "flareB" up and then quiets; slow roll of smoke for
ids.- kison kiln showi
about 6 to 8 seconds. Edison kiln shows nothing like this, the Edison shows a constant outpouring of smoke.
It is the exception to have clear smoke with a 60' kiln under hard driving. You nearly always find the smoke dark. It is remarked when clear.
In 60' kiln you notice when kiln working with a good load, intermittent rumbling with puffing of gas out of the front openings
Mr.y.L.D.. ....3.
(at coal end) of the kiln. You do not notice this with Edison.
You nearly always notice the smell of hydrogen sulphide
(& sometimes sulphur drioxide) about the rear of tbs 60' kilns.
\4-j_S -/»—• rytrUL*. -*-% W
This indicates unoxidixed sulphur escaping or when the * l
sulphur dioxide is noticed, it indicates it“Ais being burned, probably just as it leaves the kiln; G'W'.
Complete combustion would allow no hydrogen sulphide to escape.
A more thorough heating is insured with Edison kiln.
Edison handles a larger mass under heat and thereby saves heat otherwise necessary to heat the surroundings. This not only insures a better reaotion between the molecules^but saves heat.
In a 60* kiln, about one hour is required for passage of material thrcngh kiln. In 150*, about one hour and 40 minutes depends on speed of rotation and pitch, but an hour is about right for average 60' kiln, which on an average make a revolution in l-l/4 to 2 minutes, while Edison revolves in about 30 to 40 seconds at present.
lathbury & Spackman, say under the chemical and physical properties of portland cement (1902) "Not withstand ihg the brilliant investigations of noted scientists, the chemistry of portland cement is, a subject not thoroughly understood. By long experience in its manufac¬ ture, we are able to draw from the results of many analyses the safe limits of the essential ingredients butt'the manner in which these simple ingredients are bound together „and the changes they undergo during the setting of the cement. are not clear.)*
In considering what tales place in the travel of raw material
through the kiln to clinker note< the following figures. The analysis taken if from one in actual practice. What is to occur in burning 1b worked out thrord^ically and pactice c etnas very close to the figures given for calculated c anposit ion of clinkeri
In 100 lbs., raw Changes during Left after bur- Gives clinker _eait utnXbS
material we have burning _ ning 100 lbs, of ccmpoBltion
TBa. ~ ’ lb's'. “*
Silica 13.67 None 13.67 20.79
Oxide of Iron 2.09 " 2.09 3.22 Which
Alumina 5.59 » 5.59 8.63 is
Carb. of Lime 74.46 44^ goes off as 41.70 64.38 pulverized
gas; leaving lime to
cement
" Magnesia 3.60 52.4JS goes off as 1.72 2.65
gas; leaving mag*a
Moisture organic All lost
matter etc. _ .59 altogether _ 0.00 _
100.00 lbs. - - - 64.77 lbs. clinker
The ash in. the coal has not been considered; it will have its effect although slight.
Kiln No. 7, July 6, 1899, Alpha, 60* long. Material in kiln noted after kiln -had been shut down for 4 days. Was allowed to cool with very littie turning. Beginning at the coal end the following was noted in going through.
Clinker changing from hard to the soft lumps or accretions beginning a few feet from the mouth back to 14’ where no cohering masses were found. A yellow powder beginning at 10' continuing to 20’, i.e., overlapping 4» of the beginning olinker formations. Irom 20 and 30' the
Mr.S’.L.D,
change from a yellowish to. a darker powder noticed: although at 40 there was still same 'yellowish powder. Erom 40 where there exists some yellowish powder a change to pure dark undecamposed mate rial was, evident, showtg no signs, of decomposition whatever. — • <-uS
“ A little allowance must he made for a slight forward movement of the material while the kiln is turned during cooling.
This was a bottle shaped kiln; diameter from front to 33* being S'S"; between 33 and 38 the kiln tapers to internal diameter of . 5*8" . Diameters measured with brick in, ’of course.
Ho.
Insoluble &llice ous matter.
19.88
19.24
18.24 17.56 16.42 16.94 16.94 17.28 17.28 17.16 17.10
10.20
8.50
8.38
7.12
6.30 3.66 3.60 2.44 2.46 ZAO
2.30
lime
21.02
61.41
50.72
57.52
53.04
48.51
44.01
42.82
43.16
43.03
.Wfc
43.16
0.99.
2.76
2.22
2.51
1.73
• 1.71
’4
Kagnesla.
^ ~ SMa+jl h Xjma{. “ 0, t) 6—
V- H \6.*V7 •**. *«•
Mr.J.L.D. .
5k.<_
«? ^ r ^ *'*7^
The amount of carbonic acid (CO2) was not detennined but was present in all samples except No. 1. It was of course, greatest in No. 12 the fresh raw raiotute in the kiln, about 34^ and decreased as the samples read from No. 12 to No. 1 where practically none was present.
Coal dust was also present, having been blown in and becaning mixed with the material. Coal via. a found in decreasing amounts from No. 1 to and including No. 4i
Sample No. 1 contained a great deal of coal as might be inferred from the analysis given. This came from the last unconsumed coal blown in as the kiln stopped; no doubt some of it came from the few rotations given the kiln in cooling. This must have taken place to a little extent as you notice the material from No. 12 forward to No. 8, 30', showed practically no decomposition. Thirty feet is a little too far from the rear end to go undecomposed.
At any rate count on this; it is the unusual condition in 60* kiln practice to have clear smoke' issuing from the stack. A kiln is said to be working very- nice and is not hustling when emitting clear smoke. So that there is usually throughout the kiln unconsumed carbon. Some of this gets mixed with the material and comes on towards the front :
: of the kiln again while its combustion occurs while mixed with the chalk .
and the then f orming' clinker. 'K&4'
'Or CQ4KijiftXtK o£c^ woW'. 6 0
•••.. ■ ABC anything new occurs to me, WI will send it to you .
(X &ii Aatlm
TKe Edison Portland Cement ( q .
Telegraph and Passenger Station, NEW VILLAGE, N. J.
P. O. Address, STEWARTSVILLE, N. J.
June 27, 1904.
Mr, E. L. Dyer,
Edison laboratory, Orange, H. J.
Dear Sir:-
1 tlo4 )
The temperatures at base of stack in 60 ft. kilns are close to 1300 degrees E. in actual practise the following figures were taken:- 1480- 1380 - 1050 - 1290 - 105Q, - 1400 - 1620; average 1330.
By Edison removing ©o much C.0.2 so far back as he does the amount of chalk (then carbonated) is so great as to account in a large measure for the increased efficiency. That is if you decarbonate (only) chalk in one 60 ft. kiln, and then fed it into another, 60 ft. kiln the output of this other would be much more than is the case at present- of feeding the chalk in and completing the work in one 60 ft. „ &>r example :- A good 60 ft. kiln can clinker 200 bbls. in one day. That means about 120,000 lbs. of chalk consumed; and means also that 40,000 ibs. gaB -ri'C.0.2 must be driven off. This is usally accomplished with escaping gases of a temperature of 1300 3?. Also the reaction takes place suddenly i/e/
the C.0.2 being driven off and the clinkering being done immediately afterward.
The size compels’ a short reacting zone; compels the coal to be consumed in a short length of kiln.
With Edison kiln, we have say 700 bbls. per day; this means 420,000 lbs. of chalk consumed and means 140,000 lbs. gas C.0.2 driven off.
Mr. E. L. Dyer. -•
-No. 2.
’ The escaping gases are of a leaser temperature than in the case of the 60 ft., kilns.
The length of the kiln favors a more gradual. calcining of the chalk and thereby lengthens the part ^frrthe coal combustion. These differ¬ ences may be illustrated:-
(3 O
£2} /SO LN
Qo—aJi.
It looks to me as if v/e may say we have a kiln within a kiln.
’ That 18 our la8t half (f™m the coal end) may be temed a calcining kiln; the first half a clinkering kiln. In shott it apperars to me as if Edison has accomplished what was attempt by others as you may notice in the | book - » The Cement Industry « - p. i88 to 199. In the second paragraph p. 194 you see how Mr. Giron tried to get rid of C.0.2 before burning - i so as to increase hie output.. His process was not practicable. Edison's ' | certainly is.
Yours truly,
G&Ksew.
Chemist. !
THe Edison Portland Cement (£>.
Telegraph and Passenger Station, NEW VILLAGE, N. J.
P. O. Address, STEWARTSVILLE, N. J.
July 5, 1904.
in ms Kilns:
Mr. Irani L. Dyer,
. Edison Laboratory,
Orange, IT. J.
Dear Sin-
Continuing our notes on the rotary kiln, there occurs to me the following:
ISy impression is that in Mr. Edison's description of ordinary rotary kiln practice the statement is made that only two sets of idlerB or supports for 60* kilns are used. I am imformed by the ex-assistant superintendent of the Lehigh Company, that all their 60' kilns rest on 3 idlers. He stated that many of the older canpanies used 3 setsrof idlers before they felt safe enough in using two. And further, it was his opinion that the Atlas plant at present have 3 sets under at least some of ' their kilns.
Referring to your book; the cement industry, note: page 58, the picture^ and page 117, figure 70; three supports are shown.
1 also recall finding coal mixed with material in the 60» kiln ln middle third and possibly beyond and account for it by coal passing back unconsumed coming in contact with the cooler chalk moving forward, becomes mixed with the latter, is churned up with it and so advances towards the front of the kiln again where it is consumed.
)
In other words some of the -fe&sta? make s a little exaursion before it is consumed. I noticed no unconsumed coal in our kiln, although as stated before , 7/e made no search. It is my opinion however, none would be . found. As stated before, unconsumed coal escaping, seems to be the rule at the ordinary plants.
E.P.D,
Kilns:
July 7, 1904
Mr, Edward Dinan,
Edison Portland Cement Co.,
Stewart sville, H. J.
pear Sir:-
Your favors of the 5th inst. have teen received, and 1 thank you for the additional information on this subject,.
1 am glad to have you call my attention to the fact that with the old 60 ft. kilns it has been customary to make use of three sets of supporting rollers. I was under the' 'impression that this was not the case, as I had assumed that the warping of a wrought iron kiln would prevent more than two sets of rollers from being used. >'
If iron will let me know when the kilns are running smoothly, Iwwill arrange to come up to Stewart sville sometime when you are not too /busy, to take up these questions with me.
■ Yours very truly.
EED/iOi,
TRe Edison Portland Cement (q.
Telegraph and Passenger Station, NEW VILLAGE, N. J.
P. O. Address, STEWARTSVILLE, N. J.
Kiln:
July 12,, 1904.
Mr. Prank I». Dyer,
Edison Laboratory,
Orange, N. J.
Dear Sir:
There occurs to me another feature of the Edison kiln.
In the reaction of clinkering there occur| reactions which cause an evolution of heat . That is after the materials are raised to a sufficiently high temperature the combination ensues, and during this combination there is a considerable evolution of heat; so much in fact thatif it were possible to prevent all loss by radiation and conduction, were we to erect say a cylinder and fill it with chalk and then raise the temperature of the mixture at the bottom to the clinkering temperature, the reaction or clinkering of all the rest would proceed with but a very little addition of outside heat. That is after it were once started only a very little extra amount of heat is necessary to be added continually for the conpletion of the reaction. Prom this it occurs to me that with our large volume of kiln we more readily get the benefit of this heat of combination, i.e., we have a field in which it may work r— the large amount of material coming after it-taking up this heat.
TKe Edison Portland Cement (g.
Telegraph and Passenger Station, NEW VILLAGE, N. J.
P. O. Address, STEWARTSVILLE, N. J.
Kiln. — 2—
Even if there we re no heat of combination there is a greater y
constellation of heat with the much larger mass of material under reaction, which we handle.
In short our kiln affords a better chance for getting the benefit of the heat of combination during clinkering and in this is greatly|)different from the ordinary kiln.
The more I think over this the more convinced I am that this point is an important one.' Hot about the bigness of tlB kiln
or load it carries, affording a larger field for work for the coal -
but the chance afforded for the absorbtion of so much of the heat of reaction.
I trust the point I wish to make is clear to you.
yours truly, a
Chemist..
(X SjworL,
Edison Kiln:
July 13, 1904
Mr. Edward Dinan,
Edison Portland Cement Company, Stewart sville, M. J.
Dear Sir:-
Your favor of the 12th inst. has been received, hut your point is not quite clear to me.
I do not see how it makes any difference, so far as economy is concerned, whether the heat in the kiln is due to chemi¬ cal combination within the mass or to the combustion of the coal. Whatever may be the reason for the high efficiency of the Edison kiln, I do not see how the two sources of heat can be disassociated, and I wish therefore that you would make your point clearer if pos¬ sible. Of course, I appreciate the fact that with the Edison kiln T/tfen inorease the radiating surface only about 50 per cent, while we increase the load of material 400 or 500 per cent. Thus we pro¬ vide a much greater relative mass of material for the absorption of heat. Has this anything to do with the point you now make?
Yours very truly,
ELD/kni,
TKe Edison Portland Cement (q.
Telegraph and Passenger Station, NEW VILLAGE, N. J,
P. 0. Address, STEWARTSVILLE, N. J.
, m Cement. July 15, 1904.
Mr. Frank I*. Dyer,
Edison laboratory.
Orange, N. 3.
Dear Sir:
Your favor of the 13th is received, and on re-reading my letter of the 12th I think you understand what I mean. I judge so from the conclusion in your letter: "Thus we provide a much greater relative mess of material for the atosorbtion of heat."
To illustrate more clearly 2- (A) Take 100 lbs. chalk and place in a box of size capable of holding 3000 lbs . Now clinker this and consume an amount of heat allowing for losses, = X. (B) . Take this same box and place in it 1000 lbs. of chalk and clinker it. The amount of heat needed to clinker it will be less that 10X. That is,
100 lbs. requires X units of heat, tut 1000 lbs. does not require 10X units although ot is 10 times the weight.
t’/e must first supply heat for all lost by radiation, conduct¬ ion, etc. in the case of 1°° lbs. Then the 002 must be driven off and the temperature of the then calcined chalk raised to the temperature of reaction; then the ingredients react, the lime combining with the silica, and the othee molecular changes taking place. Now when these combinations take place, a considerable quantity of heat i3 evolved, but in the case of the 1°° 15s mass the reaction takes place so very quickly that there ls practically no time between. the first? 10 lbs. and
TKe Edison Portland Cement (6.
Telegraph and Passenger Station, NEW VILLAGE, N. J.
P. O. Address, STEWARTSVILLE, N. J.
Cement --2-
the last 10 lbs . so that all this heat of combination is carried off in the gases.
In the case of the 1000 lbs . in the box, the quantity is so large that you do not raise practically all of' it; to the temperature of reaction at the same time; part of it closest to the source of heat reaches the required temperature first; the reaction ensues and the heat of reaction is (of course together with that from the original source of heat) taken up by the material in contact ywhich lat^r then clinkers and gives out heat, which in turn is absorbed by material next in contact with it.' In this way the reaction '•grows'’ as it were.
Of course it takes a longer time for 1000 lbs . to react than for 100 lbs. but not 10 times as long because after that part of the material which f^rst reaches the clinkering temperature ( say first bottom layer of 100 lbs.) has reacted, this heat of reaction penetrates farther up into the mass (supposing the source or heat to be from below the box) and'^ingsTjabout the reaction of the second 100 lbs, layer. In this way the reaction grows, and as.it were increases in velocities you ascend through the box.
IShat may be in a manner be practical demonstration of these statements is found in the working of an upright stationary cement kiln, buil^Tlike an ordinary lime kiln — and filled with alternate layers of coal and of chalk mixture moulded into brick3. In such a kiln as r. • low as 50 lbs. of coal produces a barrel of cement of 380 lbs. Of course
TKe Edison Portland Cement Q>.
Telegraph and Passenger Station, NEW VILLAGE, N. J.
P, O. Address, STEWARTSVILLE, N. J.
hare there is less loss by radiation, and use is made of flower products of combustion in passing up and out at the top; but also the topmost part of the layers of chalk bricks or rock immediately absorb^ the heat of reaction of the lower parts, and""gfeve it work to do" — which would not so well be the case if the layers were not so thick.
Similarly then with our greater load we have a field for operation for this heat of reaction. We carry a larger mass of material which may be said to surround that part which is reacting, and so "soak up" as it were this heat of reaction. If we had a thinner stream or lesser quantity of material this heat of reaction would of course be evolved^ —
would not all be so thoroughly communicated to the material folldwing urouAJo
it, but -j» more likely -Wr escape by conduction and by being carried off in the gases.
The larger mass favors the better absorbtion of the heat of combination than does the smaller mass.
I trust you will understand the point I wish to make, which, however, we can discuss at our next meeting.
We have now two kilns in operation and expect the third in full operation in about a week.
Very truly yours.
Edison Kiln.
July 19,1904.
Mr. Edward Dinan,
EdiBon Portland Cement Company,
Stewartsville, H.J.
Dear Sir:-
Your favor of the 18th. Inst, has been received, calling my attention to the fact that on page 110 "The Cement Industry", dangers are described in kiln stacks of the plant of the Ita. JErause & Sons Cement Company at Martins Creek, Pa. As I understand the arrangement described, the combustion gases paBS 3cilnB through an underground duct to the
driers, the draft in this case being maintained by a centrifugal blower. Apparently, the dampers referred to are located in the duct between the kiln and the drier. The articles state that
"If the drier is not in use, certain dampers may be closed and others opened, causing the waste gases to pass out through the usual kiln stacks".
This is not very clear, but | do not think it necessar|ly means that a damper is used in the stack itself. At any rate, I be¬ lieve that Edison's idea comprehends more than merely introducing a damper in the stack. He tells me that heretofore, the stacks
No. 2 Edward Dinan.
have been made of a capacity to accommodate the average or normal conditions, and that the draft has then been regulated for varying the coal feed and the injected air. If a damper were used in such a stack, it would only be of utility if the draft conditions Improved, as in that case the draft would have to be ohoked more or less. If, however, the draft conditions become worse, no possible regulation of the damper could help matters and raoourse would have to be had to the air and coal feed. With the Edison kiln, however, I understand that the stack is of much great ar relative capacity, and that it is able to furnish the necessary draft under the moat unfavorable conditions. Hence , as the con¬ ditions improve, it becomes possible to effect the regulation entirely by this damper by merely choking the draft to a greater or less extent.
In view of the doubt which I have as to the exact looa- the
tion and function of the dampers at Martins Creek Plant, I wish you would look into the matter and advise me on two points} first Was there a damper in eaoh kiln stack? seoond - if so, too eaoh stack of : sufficient capacity to operate under the most unfavorable conditions?
Yours very truly,
HD/ABE.
UTe Edison Portland Cement ( q .
Telegraph and Passenger Station, NEW VILLAGE, N. J.
P. O. Address, STEWARTSVILLE, N. J.
August 6, 1904.
it.- iui Roaeters:
Mr. Frank L, Dyer,
Ed. is on Laboratory,
Orange, N. J.
Dear Sir:-
Replying to your favor of the 19th ult., relative to dampers in stacks of Martins Oreek eement Co's kilns, I may hate that as far as I am able to learn there was not a damper in each of the kiln stacks, nor was any use made of any dampers for the securing of more efficient working of the kiln.
My information comes from an Engineer who inspected the plant immediately after its transfer to the Alpha Company. He stated the whole device for drying stone by the kiln gasses was never used, and that the description of such an arrangement, waB a description of what was expected to, but did not work.
3o far X am unable to locate a certain party who was connected with the company from its organization until the fall of 1902, and from whom X can learn exactly what the arrangement was.
Erom other sources, I feel sur^ ho wever, that no use, such as that to which we put ours, was made of dampers in the stacks.
Concerning the use of dampers by other people, I may state the only way they have of changing the force of the draught wiih the aamo coal, chalk and air feed, is by means of a door in the brick work base of the Btacks. By opening this door cool air is drawn in, thereby decreasing
Mr.S.L.D. .... .2,
the "pull" of the stack, as youwill readily understand. This is the only kind of damper I know of as having been in use.
I will oontinue inquiry into thi3 matter and will advise you
further.
■B.P.D,
Yours very truly,
Edison Kiln:
Edward 'Dinan , Esq.,
q/o Edison Portland Cement Company,
Stewartsvllle, N. J.
Dear Sir:-
Have the recent operations of the Edison kiln under your observation thrown any additional light on the general ques¬ tions of novelty and patentability? Particularly, have you as¬ certained what -the chemical reactions are throughout the length of the kiln? You said when we last talked over this matter that at the first opportunity you would make an analysis of the product of the kiln at regular intervals throughout its length. If you have done this, it ought to throw a great deal it light on what has heretofore been largely a matter of speculation.
In order that I may be definitely advised from ac¬ tual experience, I wish you would answer the following questions:
What is the speed per minute of material passing through the Edison kiln compared to that of the old kiln?
What is the rate of rotation of the Edison kiln and of the old kiln?
How does the load in the Edison kiln compare with that of the old kiln?
TRe Edison Portland Cement (g
Telegraph and Passenger Station, NEW VILLAGE, N. J.
P. O. Address, STEWARTSVILLE, N. J.
Septenber 29, 1904.
Mr . Prank L . Dyer,
Edison Laboratory,
Orange, H . J.
Dear Sir:-
& &&
Replying toyyour favor of the 27th, inst . concerning our Kilns will state that the spaed penjninute is a very variable quanity. We have our Kilns Ho. 3 and 4 line3 v/ith corrugated brick in the rear 95 feat . This of course results in the propulsion of- the Chalk. etc., in these kilns at a more rapid rate than in the case of Kilns Ho. 1 and 2 which are smooth lined. Por thus reason and because we have not fully decided upon a fixed speed of Kiln, the speed per minute of the material passing through the Kiln is not . constants neither is it a ■ constant at other plants, but as on average so far we may give the •, .> following 'figures:' «
Edison Kiln-Speed per minute - -3.75 f eet .
• SO foot Kiln- " •' " " ——0.60 » .
The rates of rotation average about as follows:
. Edison Kiln- 1 Revolution -- 33 seconds.
60 .Foot Kiln- 1- " —100
- As to the average comparative loads in the Kilns the 60 foot;
Kiln has slightly the greater load per foot.
I have one sot of samples at regular distances throughout the entire length of kiln, but regret that by reason of our closing
Hu. F. L. D.
down ive huve no longBr the Laboratory facilities for making these';..: . analysfis .
It may be well to call your attention to the fact that the speed per minute, rate of. rotation, and load per foot are all. variables and are adjusted to suit conditions prevailing. For the 60 foot Kiln 100 seconds can be-talcen as a general average, while Edisotib at present
SI
are averaged about which rate however, cannot be stated as our constant .
In any' -ev^nt all Kilns should be and nearly all are arranged so that their a»wed etc. can be changed at will .
Very truly yours.
(X &fi4nu
kiflnS: 4
TKe Edison Portland Cement (q.
Telegraph and Passenger Station, NEW VILLAGE, N. J.
P. O. Address, STEWARTSVILLE, N. J.
June
Mr. E. L. Dyer,
Edison Laboratory, ©range , N . J.
Dear Sir:-
I have oarefully noted and studied over your letter of the relative to the rotary kilfc and after full consideration. have the following reply to make. I will answer in the order of your paragraphs.
pirst ; I am reasonably certain that in the Edison kiln substantially all the oarbonic acid is driven off before the combustion zone is reached,
9nd this gives us more perfect combustion. I of course do not maintain that, someoff^the. coal is not burned as far in the kiln where some, carbonic acid is coming off. I do maintain that we have a very much longer .zone of car-
’..j
bonic acid free material, over which material combustion can be more readily maintained. I am sure enough we can assert this distinction and make it a basis for our patent. Attached you will find one of the curves taken from "Cement & Engineering. .News" showing the changes in material as determined • on samples from a kiln at the Dexter Plant. On this same sheet X have drawn the cufvd representing the change injnaterial in case of an Alpha kiln in July 1899. It is about the eame^so you see we are reasonably safB in stating /that the changes in the 60 foot kiln are about as represented. I did not determine the Q 02 or loSS on Ignition in the Alpha case; this C02 or Loss in Ignition decreases as the amount of lime increase®, so knowing one we can estimate the other. It is perfectly plain that we are not crowded in our. combustion zone , and that by reason of the greater volume of space : free from COg from the material we secure a much better economy of fuel,.;.
E.L.D. ,2. .June 17, 1905.
However, In the face of all tils, if the 60 foot kiln he run on a lighter load, or driven slower, it might he made to have a proportionately large COg frgig apace for coal combustion. Also if we drive our 150 foot kiln too hard, i.e., by crowding in t oo much material or running too raiidly we could also decrease the economy of fuel in our kiln. But in' practical everyday working we have a longer zone where the material under reaction is free' from CO2,
‘ Looking at our 150 foot curve you notice we have at least 35 feet
free from COg:- and our kiln is 150 feet long, looking at the 60 feot kiln you see we have 5 to say 8 f-et free from COg.
Brora these figures many interesting ratios can he noted. Bor instance 35 to 8 is the ratio of the output per hour of the two kilns and 'yet- tie length are as 2-l/2.to 1. Bettee than this the output of the Edison kiln is even more than 35 hhls. per hour and although foreign to this letter 1 may say I believe considerably more.
Second: I cannot say that in the old 60 foot kiln the clinker is imperfect. On the other hand I know, it is veiy often as far as I am able to judge as perfect as ours. But I believe it may he, or was, more often the. case to find soft centered clinker frcm 60 foot kilns than from our 150 r foot kilns. I did not make any experiment for Hr. Edison of removing the soft centers and examining them. I have examined such clinker however,
(and know that the soft centers are very poof^cement. I have taken soft "clinker" like the soft centers in hard shell clinker and found it to get mushy and soft on boiling In water after it ha3 been set. for a little time. Thos .showed It to be poor.
This matter depends entirely on how thoroughly it be burned and it can probably/aoooraplished in a '60 foot kiln as well as in a 150 foot providing you go slow enough with the 60 foot , ±e . , this could be done .
as}(an: experiment.
Kr ,r.L.D.'.3. ..Tune 17, 1905.
Third;' I cannot at present cite any instance in the cement art where the desirability of a slow reaction has been pointed out. I think ksu/W&r it is obvious that a slower reaction is the more desirable. In chemistry in general, I may make the statement, "slow reactions for stability of resulting product". In the steel industry, we have the slow and gradually made Open Hearth steel generally believed superior to Bessemer; the Open Hearth consuming about two hours an^ the Bessemer about 12 to 15 minutes, during time of reaction. I will^hunt up a parallel to this in the cement Industry or the Qeranjic Industry andif I find ..any will let you know immediately. As an illustration of the .desirability of a slow reaction,
I may give the oase of slow setting cement as compared with quick setting one. It is well known that the quick setting cement will not give the strong permanent testing morter the slow setting one will. This is an illustration right in our own field to show the desirability of slow reaction.
I do not lay the superiority of our cement to the manner of making the clinker as much I do to the fact thatit .is first a more nearly j;
neutral cement than most others, ie., carries no excess of lime; it is a j
crushed cement ; and by reason of the fineness to which it is ground and the
manner of grinding we really produce more cement per pound of our article, 1 and therefore there is more rea.1 cement in a given weight of Edison brand than in the aai e weight of the other's. The tests were made by different operators working under my instructions. V/e have several reports from outside labbratories that are superior even to those. Do not however make s any claim that the superiority shown is due to thd kind of clinker - even in part; I could not give positive. evidence on this point, although my opinion is that some of the qualities of our cement are from the manner of ' the clinker formation. . ■ i
F.I.D. 1%. ,‘iune 17, 1905.
Fourth: I have not determined the temperatureof our stack gases, hut expect to do so as well as considerable other work on the kilns, all of which information we can then furnish you. Some few years ago I took stack temperatures' on 60 foot kilns and found as follows: 1480-1380- 1050t129071050-1400-1620 5 average - 1330. All Fahrenheit . Newberry gives 1500°F as the approximate temperature of the inside of the kilns where - it enters the base.' of the stack. Richards , "Jr. American Chemistry Society" January 1904 finds a stock temperature of 1508°F. In general we may give 1300° to 1500° as the steak temperature of a 60 foot kiln. The stack tem¬ perature of Edison kiln ’under normal working, I know to be considerably less - merely from observation. I understand of course this statement not, of course, stand and we must back it up by actual observations; but I know the red appearance of the inside of the base of the stafcks for the 60 foot kilns shows it to be much hotter than the dark stank base we have. I'll attend to this matter of stack temperature very shortly and promptly advise you.
Concerning other points may be relied upon for patentability,
I cannot think of any at this writing that I believe you have not covered.
As to .the rate of travel of material through kilns. . I. was not with the Edison Company prior to July 1903. I learn however that the speed of rotations, of the kiln v/as in December 1902 about 55 seconds. It would be proper to say the material is fed through the kiln at any desired rate comwpn in the art. ■ 'Where our kilns were normally, about 55 seconds, the 60 foot were from 70 seconds up to 100 or 120 seconds, to suit the material ■burned and the ideas of the manufacturers. .Edison can hardly say be increased his inside diameter more than any others for he has not; in fact I am «9lmost certain Bopie of the 60 foot kilns have a diameter greater than
I’.L.D.
.June 17, 1905. .
ours , and have had for some time. His s lie 11s may 'be larger, hut the Inside dl smeter of his kiln is not from six inches to a foot greater than any other kUn.
At the jre sent time we are turning out about 4 and again 5 times the amount of the ordinary kiln*' hut where the ordinary kiln makes a revolution in from 75 to 100 seconds, the>.Edison kiln now makes a revolution in 30-35 seconds. So at this speed we can produce clinker where it would he impossible to do so with a 60 .foot kiln.
The question of the load in the kiln is .such a variable one, I do not think it would be safe for us to say we have a oertain load eanpared to a certain load in the 60 foot kiln. We can say this, that we have a much greater load. This is obvious. At present vie make about 30 bbls
not
clinker per hour and are^ urging the kiln; we do this at 32 seconds per
revolution. How a 60 foot mates 8 bbls. clinker per hour and 'has a. revo- - -
lution in say 75 seconds.
Hot having been here in 1902 I cannot, advise you clearly on the point you wish, but the output of the kilns was not so much as it now is nor was it as good.
Should any new ideas occur tome on this subject. I will inmediately write you. Also let me knovmof any more questions I may be able to answer. a '• . •
When you have this dressed up into shape,, or about to. do so, I would like to, see it before you finally close on it as something might ooour to me we might add or we may elaborate more clearly. Therefore .if you will advise me a few days ahead I will be pleased to- go over this . matter in person with you,
I son sending you under ' separate Edison curve and the 60 foot curve.
cover two oopies each of the
I’.I.iD. a 6. .June 17, 1905»
' One thing is certain vie have 3 definite zones -in our kiln in destination to the case of the 60 foot kiln where in Newberry’s article
he says the change is a gradaul one and we have, unexpectedly perhaps, accomplished what has been' attempted before preliminary calcination {driving off carbonic acid) and' then ciinkering. See "Cement Industry" 1900 Page 194. 11 The absence of carbonic acid gas in the material facilitates wonderfully the operation of the rotary kiln" etc.
Hoping this may be gotten, into shape soon, and that you under¬ stand my reasoning, which I could perhaps explain better verbally, I am,
[ENCLOSURE]
From Cememt andEngweeriwg A/ews; /r6e 69, Vol.'KH.NoF-
Nov.
18,1905.
Walter S. Mallory, EBq. ,
Edison Portland Cement Company,
Stewartsville , N.J.
Dear Mr. Mallory:-
I have carefully looked into the question °f tcemen^im of the Or0"MlllinS Syndicate to Mr. Edison’s f oreighmpwtents , and find the situation to he as follows:-
The original agreement with the Syndicate does not con¬ template, in terms at least, anything except the specific ore- milling patents referred to therein and improvements thereon.
In 1900, two patents ware taken out, one relating indirectly and the other, directly to cement. The first of theBe patents was taken out by Mr. Edison, and 'ti'ke'^^^gned to the Syndicate, and the second patent was taken out by the Syndicate directly. In July 1900, Mr. Edison wrote the Syndicate that cement patents were not included "under the terms of the original contract", and he requested Mr. Dick to bo advise the Syndicate. On August 2, 1900, the Syndicate wrote Mr. Edison on the point and said:-
"You will remember that in all your previous correspondence and especially in your speech to the shareholders in December last, you admit that the cement rights are ’controlled by the Syndicate. ft In your speech, after dealing with the cement _ works and the plant that was being erected, and _ >;
W.S.M.
the improvements that were being made in the same, you go on to urge the shareholders not to part •with any rights for any purpose whatsoever until these two (cement) millB have demonstrated commer¬
cially the valuable rights controlled by the Syndi¬ cate 1 . You also go on to say that the 'experiments are being paid for from this side, the Syndicate realizing without expense.'
All these circumstances prove, without falling back on the terms of the Contract, that you regard the Syndicate as controlling all the cement rights, which naturally include the improva-
This latter was not answered, and Mr. Edison’s Bilence in that respect could certainly be taken as acquiescence, especially as no steps were taken by him to promptly correct the error which he Btates occured in my brother's office. Apparently, nothing was done by him until June 1902, when our attention was called to the mistake, and we were requested to write the Syndicate and demand a re-assignment of the patents. On June 25th, 1902, the Syndicate wrote us as follows:-
"This matter has been duly considered by the Board of Directors, and we desire to point out that this subject was discussed as far back as July 1900, whan Mr. Edison raised the question whether one particular patent should have been communicated to us.
Mr. Lawrence, the Chairman of this Syndicate, immediately wrote a long letter to Mr. Edison (copy enclosed) pointing out that it had always been completely understood from Mr. Edison's letters and speeches that this Syndicate was to have the benefit of cement patents and in 1900, Mr. Dick with Mr. EdiBon's conourrenoe and sanction, on be¬ half of this Syndicate, entered into hegotiations in England for the sale of these patents to an im¬ portant cement combine.
There are additional circumstanoes besides those mentioned in Mr. Lawrence's letter whioh un¬ doubtedly indicate Mr. Edison's intention to hand over cement patents to this Syndicate, in which he himself is so largely interested."
W.S.M.
We sent you a copy of this letter from the Syndicate , and on July 10th, 1902, you wrote us on Mr. Edison* b behalf that -
"There 1b no question but what the Syndicate are entitled to the Cement rights on all machinery which cornea in under the contract, but the machinery and devices designed specially for Cement work and invented after the contract was made, doea not go to them without further consideration :ijjnSmri"
Apparently, we again wrote the Syndicate on the lines of your letter, because on September 22, 1902, we advised Mr. Edison that the Syndicate had written us to the effect that -
"It has been arranged that the consideration of the matter shoiild be postponed until Mr. Dick is next in England, whan a settlement satisfactory to all parties can no doubt be arranged".
On October 24th, 1902, the Syndicate wrote a letter to Mr. Edison in which they said:-
"Mr. Diok fully explained your views with regard to the cement patents which have been commun¬ icated to us by Messrs, Dyer, Edmonds & Dyer and the feeling was at once expressed by all the Direc¬ tors that there was no wish whatsoever on our part to ask you to give us any patent rights to which we are not entitled, and which might be considered not to be covered by t,he scope of the original agreement with the Syndicate. .
We do not wish in any way to take advantage of the fact that these cement patents have been communicated to us and that we have filed patent applications on them here and abroad.
In order to recognise the principle of the ownership of the patents the Directors have re¬ solved to offer y ou a percentage of profits in re¬ spect of any patent improvements invented by, you being used hereafter, such improvements not being
W.S.M. - 4,
covered by the original contract, and Mr. hick has been asked to consult with you on the matter upon his return to the United States.
We trust that you may consider this sugges¬ tion a fair one and that it may meet your wishes, but the Directors are anxious that it Bhould not be felt for one moment that there 1b any deBire on their part to ask for more patent rightB than they are entitled to, or which you may feel will¬ ing to place at their disposal in the interests of all concerned."
The last letter on the point I find 1b one from Mr. hick, dated October 28th, 1902, in which he says:-
"You vrf.ll have received a letter from the Syndicate regarding the patent matter. There is on the records of the company a resolution admitting compensation to you for all patents outside the original patents and practically leaving the matter to you and myself. ■
The situation then 1b this; the Syndicate owns several patents which are admittedly limited to cement, but as they say in their latter of October 24th, 1902, their control of these patents depends upon the making of a new agreement with Mr. Edison. The cement patents thus directly owned by the Syndi¬ cate are not important. On the other hand , Mr. Edison has ob¬ tained patents, or has applications pending, in Great Britain, Prance, Belgium, Spain, Germany, Sweden and Norway, covering the long kiln, and corresponding substantially with the patent just granted in this country. These patents are of course, of vital importance, and as they stand in Mr. Edison's name. Under the circumstances, Mr. Edison is therefore in a strone position to insist upon an equitable re-adjustment respecting his cement
W.S.M. - 5.
patents. At the same time, of course he cannot be entirely in¬ dependent of the Syndicate, beoause as you know they control the patents on the Giant Rolls and on the Three-high Rolls, and 1 presume that if any oement plant is erected abroad, thaBe patents would have to be used. It seems to me, therefore, that in nego¬ tiating for foreign rights, on oement, the Syndicate will have to be taken into consideration, but undoubtedly an arrangement can be made in which Mr. Edison's rights will be fully protected.
Yours very truly,
IXD/AHK.
Walter S. Mallory, Esq.,
c/o Edison Portland Cement Company,
Stewart sville, N.J.
Pear Sir:-
In accordance with your request 1 have looked more carefully into the Hurry & Seaman patent No. 645,031, dated March 6th, 1900, owned by the AtlaB Company, with t|e view of expressing an opinion as to the probable chance of success¬ fully defending a suit based thereon against the Edison Port¬ land Cement Company. In connection with thlB consideration of the patent, I have read all of the arguments presented by counsel for bfeth sideB before Judge Archbold in the suit against the Martin's grade Company, and 1 have also considered the prior art so far as I have been able to unearth it by a rather superficial examination. Without going elaborately into detail, I have reached the following oonolusions.-
Pirst: In view of the fact that prior to the Hurry ic seaman invention, the possibility of burning pulverized coal in various arts, including the art of cement manufacture had
No. 2 - W.8.U.
been suggested, no invention in a broad sense would be re¬ quired to substitute a coal burner for the oil burners that were commercially uBed at the date of the patent. If, there¬ fore, the patent is valid at all, it must be limited to sub¬ stantially the apparatus disclosed therein, and when so con¬ sidered, it is not infringed by the construction employed by the Edison Portland Cement Company.
Second: The Hurry & Seaman patent points out with great elaboration, the practical difficulties which were be¬ lieved to exist in connection with the burning of pulverized coal. They evidently considered it necessary to muko use of a special burner having certain peculiarities. The burner usejt by the Edison Portland Cement Company is radically diff¬ erent from that described in the patent, and does not embody a single one of the special features that the patentees con¬ sidered indispensable . Your burner may possibly be the re¬ sult of independent invention, for which at |east no sugges¬ tion or help would have been received from the patent. Por this additional reason I do not believe the patent is infring¬ ed.
Third: The patent lays a special emphasis on the fact that the fuel should bo so directed into the kiln as to be located axially therein, so as to heat by radiation and not by impingement. As I understand it, with your kiln there is a very substantial impingement of the flame on the cement ma¬ terial, and therefore I consider this an additional reason why
No. 3 - V/.S.M.
the patent io not Infringed.
Fourth: The burner used by the Edison Portland Cement Company appears to bo identical with the oil burners previous¬ ly employed,' at least, I understand it is capable of being used convertibly, eithor for the burning of oil or coal.
This fact would indicate that the problem burning coal was no different from that of burning oil, or olBe, that aB above stated, your burner may be looked upon as an independent invention. In either case, an additional argument is present¬ ed in support of the position that your burner is not an in¬ fringement .
Fifth: Before the Hurry & Seaman patent issued, many cement plants had been equipped with coal burning apparatus, which if the Edison plant is an infringement, would also in¬ fringe. Prior to that time (March 6th, 1900) the Edison Com¬ pany had constructed its model at Orange, and all arrangements were made to proceed with actual installation. To give to the patent a construction which would include the Edison plant would destroy the value 'bf manj^millions of dollars of proper¬ ty invested in good faith before the patent issued. This pre¬ sents a strong case of equity against the patent, which the court would have to consider in resolving any substantial doubts of infringement in favor of the defendant.
Sixth: The prosecution in the Patent Office was \m- favorable . The application for patent was pending more than
four years and many references were cited and substantially acknowledged by the patentees as anticipating important fea¬ tures of their invention. A strong argument based on the his¬ tory of Iho application $n the Patent Office could bo made.
Seventh: A series quest! on is presented whether before the Hurry & Seaman invention was made, the invention had not boen independently made by Mr, Matcham of the Alpha Company.
Of course, now that the Alpha Company is favorable to the patent, difficulty would, no doubt, be experienced in the pro¬ duction of proof on this point. . I do not believe, however, that the Atlas Company could afford to absolutely obstruct any efforts to prove priority of invention on the part of the Alpha Company,
Por these reason and for others which, no doubt, would arise in case. Ja suit was actually brought, I am of the opinion that a successful defence could be made against the Hurry & Seaman patent.
P1D/ARK,
Yours very truly,
BOX No":
Eeb. 6, 1907
Walter S. Mallory, Esq.,
Edison Portland Cemont Company,
Stewartsville, N. J.
Dear Mr. Mallory: —
When you were last here we diBouBBed with Mr. Edison the advisability of bringing suit against the Atlas Company, and I thought it was. agreed that it should be dope. I therefore, prepared a bill of complaint, ' but upon submitting it to Mr. Edison yesterday he thought it would be unv/iBe to bring suit against the Atlas people, because they would un¬ doubtedly retaliate by nuing ub on the Hurry and Seaman patent. This point was considered by us and we thought that such a counter-suit would not be serious.
Undoubtedly, if we ever expect to do any-’ thing with our main patent we must take some steps to enforce it, because if we acquiosoe too long in the various infringe¬ ments we oould never get a court to grant an injunction. I therefore suggested to Mr. Edison that we should bring suit against some concern outside , of the combination, and he thought that would be all right. Can you name any independent com-
WHM-- 2— Feb . 6 , 1907
pany that uses the long kilns, against whom brought? Of course the weaker the concern i you know of such a concern, let me know and a new bill.
FDD/to
Very truly your
suit might bo s, the te tter. If I will prepare
TKe Edison Portland Cement (g.
Telegraph, Freight and Passenger Station, NEW VILLAGE, N. J.
P. O. Address, STEWARTSVILLE, N. J.
Eeb. 7, 1907.
Mr. prank L. Iftrer,
Edison Laboratory,
Orange, N. J.
Dear Sirs
Replying to yours. 6th relative to advisability of
. . .
bringing suit on the o-aal patents, beg to Btate if it had not been for ray sickness I should have seen you before this relative
to the matter.
I have had two interviews with representatives of the Hofcth American Portland Cement Col , one of whioh was Mr, Duncan, Attorney for the Atlas Company, relative to these patents, particulars of which I will give you the first time I come to Orange, which probably will be on Saturday. In the meantime, do not take any action in suit until I have discussed the matter further with you.
Yours very truly,
"Vv2rv\^,
WSM-BBS
i»Q'Cdt4<»u
TRe Edison Portland Cement Co.
' Telegraph, Freight and Paatenger Station, NEW VILLAGE, N. J.
p. o. address. STEWARTSVILLE, N. J.
BALES OFFICES :
YORK,*NA/Vm" SLJamil DulldfnE
MH»H, Natlorm|CBankUBuIldlt
December 19, 1^08.
^ , UBCtMDBr j.v, iauo
Dear Mr. Edison: - - ' .
I am attaching herewith a> letter in accordance with the resolution offered by the Board of Directors. 1 think before you pass on this matter, it would be well to take it up with Mr. Dyer, and if necessary, Mr. McCarter, so to be sure that you are thoroughly protected, as under the ciroumstances, considering all that you have done for the Company, I do not think it would be fair for the other Directors to ask you to put yourBelf in a position where there might be any question arising as to what the Company owes you on notes and open account-.
Yours very truly,
-A
•RE^EiVEDh
DEC 22 1908 :
FRANK L, DYER,
£09
MEMORANDUM
Mr. Edison: u,Xt *£_
^J, - ,~tdi.
Regarding^ the attached : told you, Messrs. McCdr^ef'' icTnglfs] notes are given they will stand on now held hy the hanks, that the new notes he
from Mr. Mallory', that if the nt same footing as the notes et Mt. Mallory's point, X suggest for three yearB, with the option to the
company to take them up in whole or in part at the end of the first, second or third year from their date.
Mr. Thomas M. Thompson raises the point that if anything should happen to you the company might, not Jave^suffic lent time to take care of the notes which you now hol£T Whether you wish to do anything in this direction is, of courses, for you to say.
sxd/iw
F. L. D.
■Edison Portland Cement Co.,
Stewartsville, II. J. My dear Mr. Mallory:
Your favor of Decenfoer 19th to Mr. Edison has been referred to me relating to the resolution of the Direc¬ tors of the Portland Cement X3o. on the subject of making improve¬ ments to cost approximately $112,000.00, the money to be advanced> by Mr. Edison and secured by the company's notes, "to run for one year, with the privilege to the company to renew same in whole or in part twice thereafter for a similar period".
Mr. Edison seemed to have some doubt whether, if this were done and anything should happen to the company, the new noteB would have the same standing as the conqoany's .notes now held as collateral by the banks. X have submitted this latter question to'Messrs. McCarter & English, who confirm my own opinion, that all the notes would stand on the same footing. To make the new - notes for one year, with the privilege of renewing them in whole or in part for two. further periods of a year each could be fully covered by contract .with Mr. Edison, but in case of his death the arrangement would not have to be carried out by his estate.- ' TOiat objection would there be to having the noteB run for thre.e . .years, giving the company the option to take thorn up in whole or JAN;.8;tn09
(a)
in part at the end of the first, .second or third yea? after their date? This it seems to me would fully so, cure the end you have in mind .
Regarding the suggestion made hy the Directors., that the same arrangement should he adopted in reference to the p they notes ttOw held hy Mr. Edison, that is a matter for adjustment hy dim. hut if you wish me to I will take up the specific question with him and ascertain his viewB.
Yours very truly,
itd/iww
General Counsel.
^^fwmo&CX £dw<m»
TKe Edison Portland Cement Co.
Tclagraph. Fr.ijht and Pai.tnger Station, NEW VILLAGE. N.J.
p. o. address. STEWARTSVILLE, N. J.
pa.',’ &«i»TJ!y®aultd"n*
", Poit Offlea 8qu.ro side National Bank Bulldlns
Mr. Harry F. Hiller, Treas.,
Edison Laboratory,
Orange, N.J.
D ear Sir:- \s ^
1 beg to herewith Jfcind you a letter from Mr. Ityer dated January 25th in which he states that Mr. Edison is willing to accept notes of our Company for the advances already made as well as the balance of the $112,000 to be advanced to cover im¬ provements and also the notes which he now holds, and-I beg here¬ with to hand you a lead pencil memorandum giving!, the dates and amounts of notes held by Mr. Edison which are not discounted at your banks. These notes I have left out. Will you check over the list and advise me if it agreeB with your own and if so, re¬ turn it to me, and if agreeable to Mr. Edison, I will arrange to have all interest figured Ito February 1st, 1909 and then have new notes drawn for three years, bearing interest at &%, interest payable annually.
Also ask please ask Mr. Edison or Mr. Dye* whether we had better have on the face of the notes the statement as to the right of the Company to pay / off. the notes, or a separate , agreement. It is my thought that it would be better to have a ' separate agreement entered into by the Company and Mr. Edison by. which .the. Company agrees that if it is in the position to
H.E.M?
pay off the notes in whole or part any time within the period of three years, and is requested to do so by Ur. E dison, that they agree that they will do it. If we should have Bay two or three good years in which the Company would make a lot of money, in view of the way in which Mr, Edison has backed us up it would only be fair, i.if. he wished it, that he should have a part of the earnings and not be compelled to wait until the expiration of the three years, and I think the should be quite as
much on his part as on the part of the Company.
1 would suggest, therefore, that you take the matter up with Mr. Edison immediately and learn hiB wishes and then ask Mr. Dyer to put it in the form of an agreement, if it is better in that way, and then I will arrange to get out the notes and have them all fixed up before Mr. Edison leaves for the South.
Yours very truly,
‘Vfirywi
sues,
— v
NKW YORK, N. Y . . Jan, . 6, . 19.1.0.. .
Prank X. Dyer, Esq.,
Pres. National Phonograph Co., Orange, N. J.
My dear Hr. Dyc.r:-
X have your favor of January 5 and am pleased to knew that you would like to go over complainant's prima facie case in the suit of Edison v. Allis-Chalmers Co., et al, brought for" infringement of Mr. Edison's method and apparatus patents covering the giant rolls. I am, therefore, sending to you, by express, a copy cf the testimony and a copy of the drawing illustrating the defendants' plant at Pekin. I do not think that you will find it neceseary to have any of the other exhibits. The following statement in regard to the testimony will assist you.
Messrs. Williams and Hartigan (pp. 2, 56) made the drawings and have described the Pekin plant fully as it was before suit v/as brought. Mr. Herter (p. 105) has described the Pekin plant in operation after suit brought. Mr. Klotz (p. 143), whose testimony I took as part of our prima facie case only because he happened to be here, has testified to t-’e advantages of the g.lant rolls over gyratory crushers. Mr. Mason (p. 150 and p. 249) has testified as to the construction and method of operation of giant rolls; showing that the giant rolls of defendants' Pekin plant must operate like the New Village rolls. Mr. Bentley (p.
179) has testified as an expert, ex tila.in.ing the inventions of the patents in suit and that defendants* Pekin giant rolls embody those inventions. Stipulations (pp, 57 and 217a) have been made completing the .-or oof connecting the different companies, namely, the Allis-Chalmers’ Company, The Casparis Stone Company and the Empire Limestone Company, with the Pekin plant and with the infringement charged in the bill and showing (p. 221) that on October 10, 1907, yuu warned the Allis-Chalmers Company against infringement of the patents aied on. Kr. Stephens, whom I could not keep within reasonable limits, has testified (p. 224) fully to the effect that representatives of the Ca3paris Stone Companv and the Allis- Chalmers Company inspected the giant rolls at New Village and at Sibley, Mich., obtaining detailed information in regard thereto and explaining how it was that defendants were able to make such&Chineae cepy of the Edison giant rolls.
Mr. Edison, Kr • Bentley, Mr. Mason and T have gone pretty fully into the principles and theories of the rolls, ' principally for use in re¬ buttal, if necessary. So far Mr. Mason and If r. Bentley have not gone into any extended discussion of the principles cf the rolls, stating only enough to make out a clear prima facie case. Kr. Edison is the one ■who has a clear, comprehensive grasp of the principles of the rolls and the ability, by apt and striking illustrations to explain those principles. Mr. Edison has stated that he would be willing to testify in rebuttal should I request him so to do, and I have- the question cf Mr. Eulscn's testifying under consideration and, therefore, state the fact in order to obtain your views. Of course, this question must at all events depend largely upon the case made by the defendants, who, T expect. tM ^ Sh” id** ^akl^R1ef their testimony thie month, probably in Chicago
P. I.
Jan. 6/10,
The defendants have set up in their answer 100 or more United States and English patents. T have gone over t,he3e carefully as far as they appeared to have any relevancy whatever, hut have found nothing that can he regarded as an anticipati!gn,,a/j_Hr. Bentley is of the sams opinion, although his examination haS^wben very superficial. Prior patents show friction clutches, slipping connections, rolls with knobs, rolls with lower and with higher knobs, even rolls with low knobs and two rows of high knobs on opposite sides, rolls with plates of different kinds, all sorts of rolls, but none of the patents of the prior art show massive rolla breaking rock by kinetic energy, or, in other words, rock fed periodically to massive rolls. Hr. Edison seems to have been the first to run massive rolls up to a high speed, then to deliver blows from the rolls to break the rock and then to crush the rock, performing the breaking and crushing by kinetic energy, and then to run the rolls up to speed again and repeat the operation.
I do not know what, therefore, the defendants rely upon.
Some questions put by Hr. Wilkinson upon cross-examination of Hr.
Hason (p. 169) and of Mr. Stephens (p. 240 et seq. ) would indicate that Hr. Wilkinson may have in mind an attempt to prove anticipation or two years prior use by the rolls at Bens en Hines or at Edison, N. J., al¬ though no such defense is set up in the answer, but might be later through amendment.
The foregoing letter, I think, will acquaint you with the principal features of the suit so far as it is at present developed.
When you have considered the testimony, will you kindly return the testimony and the drawing to me, as Hr. .Bentley and probably Hr. .Mason will need it in the further xjrogress of the case, although there i3 no present need for the same.
Very truly yours,
£oui6 Hicks, Sbq.,
71 iloooau St. ,
■Uow York City.
donr Mr. Hi aka: .
I hdvb lookod ovor tho tostiraony in tho suit ' against tho Allis-Chalmora Company on tho Giant Rolls patent and think that ovoryfching is most affectively covered- It : otrikop mo that tho casp ip a peculiarly aggravating ono and,
I think it ought to eonnond itool-f to tho Court- ’ . , .
Shore is only ono suggestion that I oon rnelro, Phioh possibly you have alroady in raind. , . THion I first considorod tho Giant Roll patient I novor" could undorotand why it ms’ . that tho passage of tho enormous.-, amount of rock botwoan tho rolls did not • seriously strain tho hearings thorof or , hut upon montioning ray doubts to Mr: Edison ho told rao that tho tromondous . inortia of tlio , rolls provontod thorn from aaparat-. ing undor tho momc^Briy, Btrossoo nhidh uero imposod Upon tho • rolls by tho rooks passing botwoon thorn. In. othor words tho rolls aro so masoivo that thoy could not posoiblo sopa¬ rat o-in tho fr&otion of a aooond "that is ooouplod in tho pascago of tho rook botwoon thorn. Mr. Edison lias said to mo that if tho bodringo woro disponsod with ontiroly tho - would not do par to lot would retain their position
mm/m,
Iduio'&Loks. (2) l/lo/lO.
in epa.oo. Of'oouxso, if tho rollo. r/oro turning at a much slower apeod and wore Dimply escorting a crushing affect on tho masses of roolt, not only would tho ' powor havo to bo enormously multiplied, but you will DOo that tho bearings thonaolvos .would havo to' bo tromondouoly largo and groat difficulty would bo cncountorod in pronorly. lubrioating thorn. By using onormouo maoooD of iron in tho rolls- and operating thorn at high spood, do as to break tho rook by. IcLnotic onorgy, wd aro ablo to uao a vary small driving powor and tho boar- ingo for tho rolls aro not unduly largo end tho lubrioation of tho booringo is vory oaoily offootod. I h^y^ novor . mentioned tho matter to Mr. Edison, but" I also strongly sus¬ pect that in tho operation .of those rolls thoro is a oortdin gyrosoopio action and by roason- of" that phonomonon tho rolls’ •bond to hold thomsolvos in thoir position rogardloas of tho boarings in. which thoy aro mountod. In othor words , by reason of tho, gyroscopic of foot an additional steadying ’ powor is takon advantago of in tho cruohing of tho rooks.
I ora^ dictating thoso notes vory hurriedly on tho
phonograph, but I think you will got on idoa of what I am driving at, and they may oomo in handy whon you are talcing yoxir robuttal testimony as .additional grounds for sustaining
|
tho patent. - • |
. lours very truly, •. |
|
H.B/IWV/ |
^omool. |
4c>» louio hicks, m:
Counsellor AT Law and proctor or admiralty
Frank L. Dyer, Esq.,
Pre3. National Phonograph Co.,
Orange, N. J.
My dear Mr. Dye r : -
I enclose a copy of a letter vdiich I have sent hy same mail to Mr. Mason in regard to the suit against the Allis-Chalraers Co. et al on the Edison giant, rails patents. The points of the letter are two; first, that I have obtained an order limiting defendants' time to take testimony to Kay 1, 1910 and cur time for rebuttal proofs to July 1, 1910; and second, that I believe that defendants will be forced to en¬ deavor to establish a defence of more than two years prior public use or anticipation by a use in this country of the roll3 by some third per¬ son prior to Mr. Edison's earliest date of invention. T do not believe that there will be any ground for establishing such defences, but from letters which I have received from defendants' coiuisel saying that he is engaged in certain investigations with regard to evidence looking in the direction indicated, X believe the attempt will be made. Therefore,
I am talcing every precaution to gather such evidence as may be available to meet such, defences if raised. I have asked Mr. Mason to take the matter up with Mr. Edison and possibly you may at some time think it advisable to do the same, or you may, yourself, have information or be in a position to refer me to same person who has information which will assist me.
With my best regards, I am,
Yours very truly.
ORA RTUIRDT.
Mar. 26, 1910.
[ENCLOSURE]
ONC ,A,,C..U.,.,
. Mar. 26, . 1910.
William H. Mason, Esq.,
o/o Edison Crushing Rolls Co., Stewartsville, N. J.
My dear Mr. Mason: -
Edison vs. Allis-Ohalaere Co., et al.
I have obtained an order limiting defendants' time to take proofs to May 1, and limiting our time to take testimony in rebuttal to July 1. This arrangement would close the proofs before the summer and enable us to bring the cause on for final hearing in the fall. So far Mr. Wilkinson has made no move toward putting in his proofs and, there¬ fore, X have secured the order limiting his time.
I have been going over the case within the last few days and there are one or two matters of which I wish to write to you.
As appears from my letter of December 11 to Mr. Mallory, and Mr. Williams' letter of December 18 to me, I wrote to the Dunbar Stone Company of Detroit warning them against infringement of the Edison giant rolls patents and Mr. Williams stated that a copy of my letter to Mr. Mallory suggesting that the Sibley Quarry Company obtain, if possible, further information, was forwarded to the Sibley Company. Has any fur¬ ther information been obtained with regard to the construotion of in¬ fringing rolls hy the Dunbar Stone Company?
Referring to my letter of January 4, 1910 to Mr. Williams, to your letter of January 17 to me enolosing a copy of Mr. Herter's report of March 15, 1907, and to your letter of Maroh 4 to me, all relating to the rolls de8igned by Mr. Phelps and built for the Clinton Point Stone Company of Clinton Point, N. Y., and later removed to Benson MineB where they now are in their changed condition, I understand you to say that your information in regard to those rolls is as follows j-
(1) The rolls were designed and built in 1896. If this is so, we have nothing to fear in regard to a defence based upon a public use
Of those rolls more than two years prior to the time, July 16, 1897, when Mr. Edison filed his application for the giant rolls patents. However, , if it should appear, although I do not understand that it was the faot, that the Benson Mines rolls, when originally put up at Clinton Point, operated by kinetic energy and were otherwise similar to the Edison giant rolls, in- such case it would be necessary for. Mr. Edisoi to prove that his date of invention was not only prior to his filing date, July 16,
1897, but also prior to the designing and construotion of the Benson Mines rolls in 1896. Of ocurse, Mr. Phelps was formerly with Mr.
Edison and I have no doubt that in 1896 what he did was the result of what he learned from Mr. Edison previously to that date.
(2) In your letter to me of Maroh 4, 1910, you say that Mr. Herter has found the drawinga for the original friotion put on the giant rolls at Edison, N. J. and that he has also found the drawings for a friotion exaotly alike in design whioh was put on the intermediate rolls whioh were 4 ft. x 4 ft. and eet directly under
the giants. The drawings for the friction of the giant rolls you say were made April 14, 1894 and the drawings of the friction
[ENCLOSURE]
m
Mar. 26/10.
for the intermediate rolls were made April 16, 1894. You add that it would seem from the fact that Mr. Edisonhad the frlotion designed at exactly the same time for the giant rolls and for the intermediate rolls, that the idea Of these frictions was purely to save the belt.
Prom this I understand that you think that when the drawings were made in April, 1894, the idea of breaking rook by kinetic energy, consisting in first running massive rolls having irregular surfaces up to high speed, then delivering rook to the rolls, thereby breaking the rook by kinetic energy, and slowing down the speed of the rolls, then running the rolls up to speed again and feeding more rook to the rolls so that the rook is fed at intervals to the rolls in the manner stated, had not then been fully developed, if, indeed, it had at that time ocourred to Mr. Edison.
It may be that later on in the oase we shall have to inform ourselves accurately in regard to all these points.
Ky impression is, subject to correction, that Mr. Edison prob¬ ably evolved the idea of the giant rolls for breaking rook by kinetic energy in the manner stated at an early date, hit that muoh experimental work was necessary before the invention could be tested and put into practical operation. Mow, the legal aspect of the situation is with regard to a possible defence that the Edison rolls were in public use at Edison, N. J. or elsewhere more than two years before Mr. Edison filed his patent application on July 16, 1897, that whatever Mr. Edison did in an experimental way to test and to develop his invention is not to be regarded as a public use, the two years beginning and running only after the real experiments had ceased with the completion of the Invention. In other words, in order to establish a defence of more than two years prior publio use, the defendants would have to show that. Mr. Edison had com¬ pleted his invention and had made all neoessary experiments therewith more than two years before July 16, 1897, and that thereafter and still more than two yearsbefore July 1 6, 1897, Mr. Edison had publicly used the invention, that is to say, had used the invention in the presence of and with the knowledge Of some other person.
(3) I understand from your letter of Maroh 4, 1910, that Mr. Phelps told Mr. Herter that he, Mr. Phelps, put a friotion pulley on each roll and also a friotion pulley on the line shaft driving the rollB.
You do not give the date when the friotion pulleys were put on by Mr. Phelps, but I assume that it was in 1896 when the rolls were designed and built. You Bay further that Mr. Herter gathered from Mr. Phelps that his frictionB were put on the rolls simply beoause he was keeping the general scheme of the original giant rolls at Edison. Erom this information it would appear that your idea is that the rolls designed and .built by Mr. Phelps in 1896 were not designed or built to break rook by kinetic energy according to Mr. Edison' sunthod. Of course, if in ,
1896 Mr. Phelps did nothing more than to use the friction, pulleys or J
"frictions", as you call them, shown .in' the drawings of April, 1894, and designed by Mr. Edison prior to April, 1894, in that oase the draw¬ ings of 1894 being in existence, as you say, the proof of Mr. Edison's ■ priority over Mr. Phelps would be clear.
(4) Will you kindly have made and sent to me a ocpy of the drawings of April, 1894, showing the frictions designed for the giant and intermediate rolls?
[ENCLOSURE]
*
m
W.B.K. -3- Bar. 26/10.
I do not think that the defendants can succeed upon the United States and English patents set up in the answer aB anticipations of the Edison Riant roll8. Therefore, although it ia well known that it is a moot difficult matter to establish in a patent suit a defenoe that the invention was in puhlio uoa more than two years before the application for the patent was filed, or a defonoe that some third person knew and used the invention before the patentee invented it, still it seems to me that the defendants' counsel will make a strenuous effort to build up suoh defences for want of any other defences upon which they can rely. Therefore, I attach great importance to our efforts at the present time to gather such evidence as will enable us to meet and overthrow such de¬ fences if raised by the proofs to be introduced by defendants, Bence I send two copies of this letter to you and I am also sending one copy of it to Mr. Dyer, in the hope that you will not only gather such informa¬ tion as you een independently of t4r. Edison, but also that you will, when you hove a proper opportunity, give r,o Mr. Edison one copy of this letter and obtain from him suoh information as he undoubtedly can Rive ue.
Kr. Mallory may very likely have some knowledge of those matters, and for this reason and because he is most interested in the suit end desirous to assist and be kept informed of its progress, I would request that you kindly call Mr. Mallory's attention to this letter.
With my best regards to you nil, I am, Yours very truly,
Mr. Wilkinson, defendants' counsel, on February 5, wrete to me saying that his client "has been Investigating some matters of defonoe, and hove ascertained that in a very few days it will be definitely known whether the matters whioh we are investigating will form part of our proofs", and on February 21 Mr. Wilkinson said, "I nm now having a re- preoentntive in the East investigate oertain matters and te ascertain what witnesses we can rely upon to establish the proposed matters of defence. I expect that the representative referred to will return to Chicago in a few doys, and I will then at once fix a date for proceeding with defendants' testimony." On cross-examination of our witnesses you will remember that Mr. Wilkinson referred to Mr. Phelps and the rolls at Benson Mines,'' implying that a draftsman, formerly employed by Kr. Edison, claimed to have invented the rolls.
Can you find out the date when the rolls were removed from Clinton Point to Benson Mines?
March 27, 1010.
Louis Hicks, Esq.,
71 Ilacsau at. ,
How York City.
hoar- Mr.- Hi oka:
Yours oi’ tho 26th inst. has boon received in roferoncc to tho suit oguinst tho Allis-Chalmors Co. Personally ' I can not familiar with tho datos of :sr. Edison's work on tho giant rolls because tho original application was filed before I oamc to How York. Shore can bo no doubt, however, but that Mr. Edison's work, at least up to tho end of tho year 1897,. was purely experimental. I viaitod- tho plant at Edison in tho Spring of 1890 and at that time it was bolioved that tho experimental period had passod, and fir. Edison coraraencod negotiations with capitalists in London to exploit his inventions on oro-milling maohinory for the rest of tho world. I havo always understood, as a matter of gonoral gossip, that a formor draughtsman of Mr. Edison's loft him in tho oarly days and startod to build a sot of giant rolls somo- whero olso, claiming that ho was tho inventor, but I understood from Hr. Edison that tho so rolls woro an abBoluto failure.
If I can bo of any service to you in connootion with this particular dofonso, do not hositato to call upon me.
At all timos I shall of courso bo most interested to hoar of tho progress of tho case. ^ours v y
b/h y . /pui ^ 1
July 13, 1910
I had a talk with Harry 1. Dunoon on Monday, in regard to the suit on the long kiln patent. He said that in the original test oase the defendant had acknowledged the validity of the patent ,and had taken out a lioense, hut that there is one other suit pending in which nothing has been done beyond the filing of the replication, for the reason that Mr. Dunoan thinks that it would be very muoh more advisable and safe to go before the oourt on the two patents, that is, the apparatus and prooess both, than to try out the oase on the apparatus patent alone.
He said that he talked this matter over with you about a year ago and thought that you agreed with him, and he thinks that we should take our appeal to the Board of Examiners in Chief in the prooess application right away, and Wit that we should be suooessful in getting some good claims, and that we should then take out the patent and bring suit based upon both patents against some oonoern, so that the prooess olaims would be before the oourt together with the apparatus olaims.
He oonsiders the ohanoes before the Board very good indeed, and is willing to oo -operate in every way upon the appeal. He suggested that I get up the argument, and that we should then go over it together, which seems like a good suggest¬ ion. dh/mjd
I saw Mr. Dunoan yesterday in regard to the suit on the Edison kiln patent, and find that he is perfectly willing to go ahead with the. taking of proofs in this suit, hut would like to have a letter from you asking him to take such step, on aooount of the misunderstanding whioh seems to have arisen.
His idea of a prima faoie oase is to put on the stand the former superintendent of the defendant, who is expert in burning oement, hut is not a patent expert, and examine him as to the apparatus used hy the defendant, and how it was used, and what results were obtained. He does not think it would he advisable to put a patent expert on for the prima faoie oase, as the oross -examination would then be direoted to all sorts of matters oonneoted with the patent and its file wrapper which he thinks can just,, as well be avoided at this Btage of the case. He thinks.it would probably be well to have a patent expert for the rebuttal.
fhe best patent expert on oement is believed to be Prof. Carpenter of Cornell, and he thought it would be ad¬ visable to ^Btain Prof. Carpenter if we get him.
- it seeips to me that if we are 'to retain this ex¬ pert , it ..should. ‘be done before we begin taking our proofs, because the other side may retain him if we wait, but Mr.
Dunoan says that Prof. Carpenter iB at present in California, so. that it might be diffioult to arrange the matter at this time. What would you like to do in this regard?
FLD 2
The olaims whioh’Mr. Duncan thinks are infringed are 1, 2, 5, 8, 17 and 18, and possibly 6, 7 and 11.
As to claim 6,. we do not see how we oan prove that in the defendant's apparatus the length of the kiln beyond the combustion zone is sufficient to permit substantially all the oarbon dioxide to be evolved from the oement material. The substanoe of this claim seems to be a prooesB. While the de¬ fendant ' s . kiln might be long enough to permit this, it seems to me that we should be required to prove that the oarbon di¬ oxide was evolved as set forth in the olaim. This we have no way of doing.
As to claim 7, we do not know at present whether there is a damper in the. staok or flue.
I would be glad to have your viev/s in full as to the matters referred to herein. j
_ s
dh/mji
Legal Department Records Cement - Interference Proceeding
Shiner v. Edison (No. 27,406)
This folder contains material pertaining to a Patent Office proceeding involving an application filed by Edison on January 27, 1906, for a patent on a rotary kiln that he had invented in 1 899 and a competing application by William C. Shiner. The one selected item is Edison's brief on appeal to the commissioner of patents, who ruled in favor of Edison in June 1909.
Bo*. [7^
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE.
WILLIAM C. SHINER
THOMAS A. EDISON.
ON APPEAL TO THE COMMISSIONER IN PERSON.
BRIEF FOR EDISON.
KRANK L. DYER,
, Attorney for Appellant.
HERBERT H.' DYKE, DYER SMITH,
Suited states fatcut (Office.
Interference No. 27,400. Rotary Kilns. On Ap¬ peal to the Comaijs- sioner in Person.
BRIEF FOR EDISON.
This appeal is taken b.y Edison, the senior party, from the decision of the Hoard of Examincrs-in- Chief in favor of Hie junior party, Shiner. The de¬ cision was rendered by a divided Hoard, Examiners- in-Ohicf Stewart and Campbell, holding- — though they were not in agreement in their reasoning — that priority should be awarded to Shiner, and Examiner-in-Chief Mncaulcy holding that Edison is entitled to the award of priority. Eaeli of the tlie three members of the Hoard of Examincrs-in- Chief wrote a separate opinion.
Tlie senior party, Edison, filed his application on January 27, 1 !)()(;. Shiner did not file until nine months later, his filing date being October 26tli of the same year. Tlie interference is between Edi¬ son’s application and a patent granted to Shiner on February 19, 1907, upon his application of October 20th, 1900.
The Invention and Interference Issue.
The invention in issue is an improvement in cement burning kilns devised for tlie purposo of re-
\ Villi am C. Shiner, Thomas A. Edison.
2
turning to the kiln the finely divided cement form¬ ing material carried into the stnek by the rapid flow of tlie discharged gases from the kiln. A cham¬ ber is provided at the base of the stack so ns to increase the diameter of the stack in that neighbor¬ hood, thereby decreasing the speed of the discharged gases and allowing the material carried by the gases to fall upon the bottom of the chamber, where it collects in a sort of hopper provided for the pur¬ pose, and is returned by means of a suitable return¬ ing device to the kiln to be burned into cement clinker. The returning means shown by each of the Applicants consists of a rotary conveyor.
The interference issue is as follows:
“1. In a rotary kiln, a stack provided with a base having a chamber adapted to receive and to retain matter dropped from the stack, a kiln-tube connected with the base and ter¬ minating with its interior portion slightly be¬ low tlie chamber thereof, and movable means for positively conducting tlie descending mat¬ ter from the stack-flue directly into said kiln.”
The Burden of Proof on Shiner; His Patent In¬ advertently Granted.
Tlie patent to Shiner, it will be noted, was grant¬ ed while Edison’s application was pending in the Patent Office. On the question of the burden of proof, tlie Examiner of Interferences held as fol¬ lows :
“Shiner has a patent, which was issued to him on tlie 19th of February, 1907, but this patent having been inadvertently issued, does not change tlie relation of the parties, and the burden is therefore upon Shiner of proving priority by preponderance of evidence.”
Examiner-in-Cliief Campbell stated in liis opin¬ ion (pages 9 and 10), that it was error to bold that
8
tlie patent was inadvertently granted to Shiner, basing this view upon the alleged ground that Edi¬ son did not claim the invention of tlie issue until after the granting of Shiner's patent, and that Edi¬ son was not claiming this invention at tlie time that Shiner’s patent was granted. We had thought that this ghost had long ago been laid, and that tlie rule was well established that an applicant lias tlie bene¬ fit of the date of filing an application disclosing his invention for any claim which may properly be made upon the disclosure thereof, and so are very much surprised at such a finding, but, ns eacli of the Examiners-iii-Chief who decided in favor of Shiner appears to have erroneously assumed that Shiner was the first, and Edison tlie last, to claim tlie invention of tlie issue (though Mr. Campbell was alone in holding that this supposed fact, if true, would have any effect upon the rights of either of the parties), we shall consider tlie applications of tlie two parties with a view to showing tlie real facts relative to the times of claiming the invention by the parties.
It will be seen that the issue of the interference comprises three elements; tlie stack with tlie cham¬ ber at its bottom ; tlie kiln-tubes connecting witli tlie chamber; and means for returning material col¬ lected in the chamber to the kiln. There are some minor limitations in tlie claim to which we shall refer hereafter, but these are its principal elements. Edison’s application, as originally filed, contained three claims which were numbered respectively 3, 4 and (i, and which were drawn directly upon the combination of elements now forming tlie issue. For example, Edison’s original claim 4, read as follows:
“4. Tlie combination with a rotary kiln, of a settling chamber witli which the upper end of tlie kiln connects and means for returning
to the kiln material deposited in said settling chandler, substantially as set forth.”
and these claims to this combination of elements remained in the application during the entire time that Shiner’s application was pending and includ¬ ing the time of the issue of the patent.
Shiner’s application, at its filing, contained sev¬ eral claims to this same combination of elements, claim 5, for example, rending as follows:
“5. In a rotary kiln, a stack having a flue and a base provided with a chamber, a kiln connected with the base and terminating in the chamber thereof to permit dust or fine par¬ ticles from the kiln to pass directly into the flue, and means arranged in the base of the chamber for conducting the dust or fine par¬ ticles from the fine back into said kiln.”
Shiner’s claims wore rejected on November 13, 1800. They were then cancelled and two claims were substituted, which, after further slight amend¬ ments, became the claims of the patent.
Of these, Claim 1 is the issue of this interference. So far as is apparent, the only difference between the issue and Claim d originally filed by Edison is that the claim of the issue sets out that the bottom of the kiln-tube is below the bottom of the chamber and that the returning means returns the material direct to the kiln. It is inconceivable that the Pri¬ mary Examiner having the two applications before him, with their almost identical disclosure, so far as they relate to the features in issue, and with the claims of each directed to the same identical com¬ bination of elements, could have decided that the parties wore not endeavoring to claim the same invention, and could have issued the patent to Shiner without taking steps to institute an inter¬
ference between him and Edison. The only way in which we cau account for the issue of the patent to Shiner, under the circumstances, is, that it was issued inadvertently, and that the Primary Ex¬ aminer, when he passed Shiner’s ense to issue, did not have in mind the disclosure and claims of the application of Edison. It seems perfectly clear that the only differences between the claims pre¬ sented in these cases are such differences ns arise when npxtlicntions for identical inventions are be- ing prosecuted by different parties, by reason of the fact of universal experience that no two persons will view the same subject matter in precisely the same light. To hold that Edison did not claim the invention of the issue from the .time of the filing of his application, when he did in fact have claims for the same combination of elements and for per¬ forming the same functions, is substantially to hold that no interference will be declared between pend¬ ing applications, lint that every applicant, in order to obtain an interference, must wait until his oppo¬ nent’s patent has been issued. It cannot be that the amendments to Rule 98 were made for any such purpose.
We submit, therefore, on this phase of tiie case, that it is entirely immaterial who was the first to claim the invention of the issue; but that, since it has been shown tiiat each of the applicants was claiming this invention from the filing of his appli¬ cation, and Edison was the first to file, he was the .first to claim the invention; that the patent to Shiner was inadvertently granted while Edison’s application was pending and that the burden of proof is on Shiner.
The Evidence.
What we have had to say so far has had reference only to the disclosure of the two applications. Tiie
stipulated- statement of facts for both signed l>y counsel on bebnlf of the respec¬ ts. The stipulation, after setting out ccr- i which nppcnr from the file of Mr. application, presents tlie cases of the its, on pages 5 and 0, as follows:
Shiner’s Case.
The invention defined by the Interior- issue, the first claim only, of the Shiner it No. Sit, (123 of February tilth, 1907, was lived- by the patentee, Shiner, on or about lath, 1903. ITe made drawings of the in- on about July 20th, 1901, and explained mine to others about the 25th of July,
That he first embodied the invention, isuc of this Interference, in a rotary kiln, m Atlas Portland Cement Company’s :s, at Northampton, Pennsylvania, July 1904, and the Kiln was started up, with Invention therein about August 1st, 1904, vorked successfully since said date. That first.said day of August, 1904, thirty odd y kilns have been modified to embody in turc the invention, the issue of this inter- ce, by the said Shiner and others under uperintendcncc of installation as set out is patent of February lfltli, 1907, No. 23, and all of which kilns embodying the Shiner invention are now in successful ition, at. different points at this time. The of changing an ordinary rotary cement Bring kiln to the Shiner patented inven- ;o effect a reduction of waste in the clink- of the cement materials is between six en dollars per kiln. That this can be nc- lished by principally a brick-layer under of the Shiner invention. The Shiner in- 3ii is designed to conserve waste in the iction of Portland Cement.
1. The invention defined by the Interfer¬ ence issue was conceived by the. party Edison on or about January 1, 1899, anil was at that .time fully disclosed by him to others at Or¬ ange, and elsewhere within the United States, but not to his knowledge at any time to Shiner
>■ and his associates.
2. In the month of January, 1S99, Edison bad working drawings made of the invention and in the month of July of that year lie caused
. a second set of working drawings thereof to ! bo made. In the month of Scpembcr, 1899, be made a wooden model of the invention and from time to time during the year 1899, and particularly in the month of February of that year, he made numerous sketches illustrating the invention of the issue.
3. Edison began in October, 1899, and com¬ pleted in August, 1900, at the Edison Labora-
, tory, West Orange, N. J., a complete, full size kiln involving therein the issue and immedi¬ ately after its completion this kiln was suc¬ cessfully tested and the apparatus was suc¬ cessfully operated and large amounts of cement forming material . was burned to clinker which was ground to form Portland Cement.
This cement was not made use of commer¬ cially, however, but was merely tested to deter- •mine that the clinker was properly burned. These operations constituted a complete reduc¬ tion to practice of the kiln, in which was em¬ bodied the issue. The development of the Edi¬ son kiln involved expenses of over one hun¬ dred thousand dollars, and were witnessed by lurge numbers of employees of the Edison Laboratory and by numerous visitors, none of whom, however, was Shiner and bis associates to the best of the knowledge and belief of the said Edison, nor is there any claim at this time that. Shinei-i derived the ideas of bis in¬ vention patented February 19th, 1907. from
wlmt the said Edison might have been doing.. Both working independently, as inventors, in- this field.
The following table shows the salient facts and dates :
Shiner. Edison.
Conception . Jnly 15, 1903 Jnn. 1, 1899
Drawings . July 20, 19041 Jnn., 1899
1 July, 1899
Disclosure . July 25, 1904 Jan. 1, 1899
Reduction to prac¬ tice . July 29, 19041 Oct., 1899 to
JAug., 1900
Kilns since modi¬ fied to embody
the invention . 30 odd. No evidence.
Application filed _ Oct. 2G, 1906 Jan. 27, 1906
Patent granted . Fob. 19, 1907
It appears from this. table that Edison was the first to conceive, the first to reduce to practice and the first to file his application. It appears also that, while Edison waited five years and five months after reducing the invention to practice, before filing his application for patent, there was a similar delay on Shiner’s part of two years and three months, and that Shiner, since reducing the invention to practice, lias embodied it in thirty odd kilns, though no dates appear for the making of these kilns. As we have seen, the case is not af¬ fected by the inadvertent granting of the patent to Shiner.
Edison Entitled to the Award Because the Prior Inventor. Alleged Exceptions to the General Rule that priority will be awarded to the first inventor.
ance with II. S. Sec. 4904, Edison must succeed in this interference, for lie is both the first to con¬ ceive the invention and the first to reduce it, to prac- . ticc, and is therefore necessarily the prior inven¬ tor.
It lias been held in recent years that in cases where the prior inventor is shown to have delib¬ erately suppressed Ids invention, and 1ms been moved into activity by the knowledge that a rival inventor lias entered the field, priority may bo awarded in an interference in favor of the Inter inventor, if lie was diligent aiid was the first to dis¬ close tlie invention to the public. We are unable to understand how such decisions can bo correct in so far as they authorise the grant of a patent to a later inventor in the face of a prior completion of Hie invention by another, for such a patent is an¬ ticipated and, if of any force whatever, is good only against the opponent in the Patent Office, and against no other person in the world. Such a document is not a patent at all in any sense of the term. And if patents are to he granted to another than tlie first inventor, the statute should be amended, not construed, to that end. We assume, however, that tlie Commissioner will consider him¬ self bound by these decisions, and that we must lie satisfied with merely voicing our protest. A leading case on this subject is Mason vs. Hepburn, C. D., 1S98, page 510, decided by the Court of Ap¬ peals of tlie District of Columbia. This line of decisions is so well-known that we need not go into the various cases in detail. Their scope and the reasoning on which they are based is well ex¬ pressed by tlie following extract from the case of Mason cs. Hepburn, supra:
“Considering, then, this paramount interest of the public in its bearing upon tlie question as presented here, we think it imperatively dc-
No argument is needed to show that if the award of priority is to go to tlie prior inventor in accord¬
10
mantis Hint a subsequent inventor of a new and useful manufacture or improvement who lmd diligently pursued his labors to the pro¬ curement of the patent in good faith, and with¬ out any knowledge of the preceding discoveries of another, shall, as against that other, who lms deliberately concealed the knowledge of his invention from the public, be regarded as the real inventor and as such entitled to his re¬ ward.”
That the rule of these cases will not be extended and is applicable only whore doubt exists concern¬ ing the reduction to practice by the first inventor, appears from several subsequent decisions of the same tribunal. This, we think, is the true doctrine for if there is doubt ns to the reduction to practice by the party earlier in the field, it may be argued from subsequent delay that his prior work was no more than an abandoned experiment. But where no such doubt exists, we cannot see how any tri¬ bunal which has to pass on questions of priority can avoid awarding priority of invention to the prior inventor. For example, in the case of McBerty vs. Cook, C. D., 1900, page 248, the same court said:
“The facts are not suflicient to bring the case within the rule announced iii Mason vs. Hepburn, C. D., 1898, 510, and that rule will not lie extended to any case not coming clearly within it. The case falls rather within the governing principle of the later case of Rsty vs. Newton, C. T). , 1899, 284. As was said in that case, delay is often a potent circumstance in aid of a determination in a case not other¬ wise clear of the question whether an invention had been successfully reduced to practice or had resulted in nothing more than an aban¬ doned experiment. That case does not occur in the case at bar, because, ns stated in the begin¬ ning, the evidence of actual and successful re¬ duction to practice is ample.”
See also Brown vs. Blood, 105 O. G., 976.
11
There is no doubt in this case about Edison’s reduction to practice in 1900; for it is stipulated (Edison’s case, supra) that “Edison * * * com¬ pleted in August, 1900, a complete, full size kiln involving the issue, and immediately after its con¬ clusion this kiln was successfully tested” and “these operations constituted a complete reduction to practice of the kiln,' in which was embodied the issue.” If we apply the rule of McBerty vs. Cook, supra, that where the proof of reduction to practice by the earlier inventor is unmistakable tbe award of priority must necessarily go to the first inventor, the undoubted proof of Edison’s successful reduc¬ tion to practice in lfioo absolutely disposes of the interference in favor of Edison.
Edison Disclosed the Invention to the Public in 1900.
The Examiuers-in-Ohief devoted considerable dis¬ cussion to whether the doctrine of this line of cases is dependent upon an equitable estoppel operating against an earlier, negligent inventor and in favor of his more diligent, though later rival, or whether it is dependent upon forfeiture to the public. But, inasmuch as they were agreed that a disclosure to the public by the earlier inventor prior to such dis¬ closure by the later inventor would relieve the for¬ mer from either estoppel or forfeiture, as the case may be, and this view appears to be fully borne out by the decided cases, we may confine our in¬ quiry to determining whether or not such disclosure was made.
The stipulation which is the evidence in the case, after describing the completion and testing of Edi¬ son’s kiln, resulting in the reduction to practice of the invention of the issue, continues :
“The development of the Edison kiln involved expenses of over one hundred thousand dol¬ lars, and were witnessed by large numbers of employees of the Edison Laboratory and by numerous visitors, none of whom, however, was Shiner and his associates.”
The majority of the Examincrs-in-Chicf held that this language does not establish the fact that the numerous visitor’s witnessed the successful testing of the invention in issue. In tills we believe that they arc in error. In tile stipulated state of facts, the completion and testing of the kiln are first set out and then the resulting reduction to practice. This is followed by the statement that its “develop¬ ment” was witnessed by numerous visitors. To our mind it is clear from the arrangement and obvious relation of these several statements, that, by the development of the kiln in this connection, is meant the construction and successful testing which had already been referred to in the stipulation. With respect to inventions, development is a well under¬ stood term. All inventors proceed by steps. A device is first made and tested to find if it is satis¬ factory, and if any defect develops, it is remedied by the making of changes or a new device, and this in turn is again tested to ascertain whether the defects have been eliminated, and the development of an invention is never complete until it has been finally tested and found to operate successfully. Its development ends then and not until then. We do not say, of course, that this particular kiln was developed in this precise way, but make this ex¬ planation merely to show what is the • common understanding as to the development of an inven¬ tion. We think that, from the context and the way in; which the various statements in the stipulated testimony are arranged, and from the well under¬ stood meaning of the word “development” os ap¬ plied' to inventions, it is clear that the successful
18
operation of the device was carried on in public. Examincr-in-Chief Mncauley’s observation on this subject is as follows: (Decision of Examiners-in- Chief, page 21) :
“It seems fair to assume that the develop¬ ment here referred to refers to the preceding • statement of the completion of the invention, including the successful operation thereof, and in this view of the stipulated state of facts the invention was at that time placed in the hands of the public.”
Whether or not the language of the stipulated evidence includes the witnessing of the successful operation of the invention by visitors at the Edison Laboratory, it is clear that the kiln was open to the inspection of the public and that it was successfully tested where the public had access to it. These facts are very close to the facts in the case of Zimmer v. Horton, recently decided by your Honor, and reported in 137 O. G., 2210, and affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 137 O. G., 2223. In that case, the rule of Mason v. Hepburn being invoked against Zimmer, the Court of Appeals held that the fact that the device was tested in a room to which the public had ac¬ cess, was a sufficient disclosure to the public to negative any inteution of suppressing the invention. The Court made use of the following language :
“As his (Zimmer’s) date of reduction to practice is earlier than the earliest date claimed by Horton, he is entitled to priority unless it affirmatively appears that lie aban¬ doned the invention or secreted it and brought it to light after Horton had given it to the public. Neither of these conditions is shown to have existed. Exhibit C was for a period of several weeks tested in a room to which the public had access. Exhibits D, E and F which, it must be held, embody Zimmer’s in-
14
volition, wore also operated in such n manner as to relievo Zimmer and ids assignee of the charge of suppressing the invention.”
Tlie majority of the Exninincrs-in-Chief, liaving decided that the evidence did not show that the visitors to the Edison Laboratory witnessed a suc¬ cessful operation of the device embodying the in¬ vention, held that for that reason Edison did not disclose the invention to the public in 1900. For reasons already given, we submit that the evidence docs show that the visitors, in witnessing the de¬ velopment of tlie kiln, witnessed its successful op¬ eration, but, if it be assumed that witnessing the development of tlie kiln did not extend to the wit¬ nessing of its successful operation, and that the visitors only saw tlie construction of tlie device and tlie relation of its parts, we submit that this alone was a sufficient' disclosure of tlie invention to tlie public, particularly in the light of tlie fact that the evidence shows that this- identical device was suc- ' cessfully tested and found to be a successful reduc¬ tion to practice of tlie invention in issue.
Tlie successful testing of a device of this nature is at best a matter of deduction. Substantially all that an eye witness of such a successful operation of tlie device would be able to see, would be that tlie shaft of the conveyor is rotated when the de¬ vice is put into operation, and all the elements of the issue being hidden within the interior of the kiln, they would not be open to inspection nor to visual determination of whether they were perform¬ ing their functions or not, and even if it be assumed that a window could, be provided for observation from without, the dense cloud of smoke and dust at an enormously high temperature in which these ele¬ ments would be enveloped would prevent observa¬ tion by such means. It is only from calculation based upon the amount of material fed to the kiln
16
and tlie amount of cement clinker produced thereby, and by comparison upon such data with kilns not equipped with such a device, that any information can be gained as to whether a saving is effected by tlie use of the improvement of tlie issue, and it must lie perfectly apparent that a member of tlie public Who witnessed tlie construction of tlie device and knew just how it was gotten up, would know a great deal more about the invention than one who was merely nil onlooker at n time when it was in suc¬ cessful operation.
In tlie decisions of Mason vs. Hepburn class, the acts, which have been held to deprive a prior in¬ ventor of the award of priority by reason of what lias been accomplished by a later inventor, are acts apparently growing out of and indicating an intent to suppress the invention, and to keep knowledge of it from the public, and furthermore the decisions hold that ho such intent will be presumed even where there has been delay, but it must be proved by the party advancing it. This is perfectly clear from all the cases. For example, in the case of Zimmer vs. Horton, just cited, tlie Court of Ap¬ peals says that the earlier inventor is entitled to tlie award “unless it affirmatively appears that he abandoned the invention or secreted it and brought it to. light after Horton (tlie later inventor) had given it to tlie public.”
We have made diligent search through tlie re¬ corded decisions and are unable anywhere to find authority for tile holding of the Examiners-in-Chief that a disclosure to tlie public, to be sufficient to negative an intent to conceal or suppress the in¬ vention under tlie rule of Mason vs. Hepburn, must necessarily consist in a viewing of a successful test of a device embodying tlie invention by members of tlie public. It cannot lie doubted that any sucli re¬ quirement is much too strict, for the particular
|
10 kind of evidence of intent to suppress or not to suppress tiie invention iB decidedly of minor im¬ portance. In any reasonable view of the matter any evidence which will show what wns the intent | of tiie inventor will answer the purpose, so long as : that intent appears with reasonable clearness from |
17 vs. Trorllcht , 115 Fed. Rep., 144; 53 C. C. A., 348; “Abandonment rests upon the intention of tiie in¬ ventor, and should be established by convincing evidence;” Mast Poos Co. vs. Dempster Mill Co., 82 Fed. Hep., 331 ; 27 C. C. A., 191. |
|
such evidence. |
In view of tiie clear weight of authority, in sub- |
|
In Wullcor on Patents, Fourth Edition (page |
stantiaily requiring proof beyond a reasonable |
|
!: 125) Mr. Walker states, citing Eastman vs. Eons- |
doubt that Edison did not abandon or forfeit his |
|
1 ton, 95 0. G., 2000, a D. C. App. Case, that a disclo- |
completed invention in 1909, tiie Examiners-iu- |
|
sure of an invention consists in making it known |
Chief are entirely in tiie wrong. And if it be ad- |
|
to another person well enougli to preserve its plan |
mitted, ns tiie authorities clearly say it must be, |
|
for the benefit of others if tiie inventor were to die |
that Shiner, who asserts such abandonment or for- |
|
without doing anything further. In whatever way |
feiture by Edison, must fail in his contention or |
|
tiie language of tiie stipulated statement of facts is |
establish it. by convincing evidence, tiie only pos- |
|
construed the disclosure referred to therein cer- |
sible result of this interference will he an award to |
|
ij tainly meets tiie requirements of this definition. |
, Edison, for Shiner relies entirely on Edison’s dc- |
|
Edison has therefore affirmatively proved that |
lay — from which abandonment or forfeiture cannot |
|
il lie had no intent to suppress or conceal the inven- |
lie presumed, even if Edison presented no counter- |
|
i tion. Hut he is not required to furnish such proof, |
vailing proofs — and Edison lias negatived any such |
|
for the cases hold that instead of the earlier in- |
• intention by (1) completely and unmistakably re¬ |
|
|i venter being required to prove fully and formally |
ducing the invention to practice; (2) admitting |
|
that he did not abandon or forfeit his rights to |
numerous visitors who witnessed tiie development' |
|
the invention, tiie shoe is on the other foot, and he |
of the invention; and (3) by filing his application |
|
who asserts abandonment or forfeiture or suppres¬ |
without any knowledge of Shiner’s doings. |
|
sion or concealment of the invention must furnish |
|
|
! affirmative proof; liurson vs. Vogel, 131 O. G., |
The conclusion appears to us to be inevitable |
|
942, and that abandonment is not to be presumed |
that Edison bad no intention of suppressing the |
|
from mere lapse of time; Rose vs. Clifford, etc., 135 |
invention and that he did disclose the invention to |
|
O. G., 1301 ; “Under the statute tiie burden of prov¬ |
the public in 1900. Tiie effect of such disclosure |
|
ing abandonment is on him who asserts it; Kellogg |
is to entitle Edison to the award of priority. In |
|
Co., vs. International Co., 158 Fed. Hep., 104; “Nor, |
the words of the Examiner-in-Chief Campbell (De¬ |
|
indeed, 'should evidence of abandonment rest upon |
cision of Exainiuers-in-Chief, p. 3) “If the facts re¬ |
|
ji doubtful or controverted inference;” Victor Talk- |
cited in. the stipulation establish a disclosure to |
|
; ing Machine Com gang vs. American Oraphoplione |
the public of his (Edison’s) invention in 1900 or |
|
i Co., 140 Fed. Hep., 800 ; “Clear evidence of an in¬ |
prior to the advent of Shiner upon the scene of in¬ |
|
tention to dedicate an improvement to the public |
vention there is of course an. immediate end to the |
|
is indispensible to establish an abandonment;” Ide |
dispute between the parties in Edison’s favor.” |
18
Shiner’s Work of 1903 and 1904.
Tho next stop in tho history of this invention after wluit was accomplished by Edison in 1900 was Shiner’s work in 1903 and 1904. The evidence shows flint he conceived the invention of the issue in July of 1903, but did nothing further with it until 1904, not even disclosing it to others, and in July, 1904, lie disclosed it to others, had drawings made, and on July 29th of that year, embodied it in a kiln of the Atlas Portland Cement Company at Northampton, Pennsylvania, “and the Kiln was started up, with said invention therein about August 1, 1904, and worked successfully since said date” and that since August 1, 1904, thirty odd kilns have hecn modified to contain the said inven¬ tion, all of which were in successful operation at the time of making the stipulated statement of facts which was filed in the Patent Office on No¬ vember 23, 1907.
It will he seen that in Edison’s ease a technical public use is negatived by the evidence that the cement produced in the use of the device of the interference issue was not made use of except for testing and was not put into the ordinary chan¬ nels of trade. Shiner’s evidence show's nothing as to this and nothing about disclosure to the public. It ajipears, therefore, that one of these two things must be true of Shiner’s operations in connection with his first kiln: either that he put his invention into public use on August 1, 1904, by using it to produce cement which passed into the ordinary channels of trade, or if this he not the case, then there is no evidence that the public was benefited in any way by his invention, for it is certainly true that the evidence does not show any facts concern¬ ing his disclosure of tho invention to the public at that date, or that he took any steps in that direc¬
19
tion until lie filed his application for patent in Oc¬ tober of 1900, more than tw'o years later.
In our brief before the Examiners-in-Ohief, we took the view that the evidence showed a public use by Shiner because it did not negative tho passing of the product of his August, 1904, kiln into the chan¬ nels of trade. We here and now recede from that position, as w'e are convinced that while it may bo likely that there was such a public use, the only evidence is negative and not positive, and posi¬ tive evidence is necessary to establish such a fact.
. As to the “thirty odd” kilns in which Shiner placed the invention in issue, all that the evidence discloses is that these kilns 'were modified to em¬ body the invention sometime between August 1, 1904, and Nov. 23, 1907, the date on which the stipulation was filed in the Office, rind that they were operating successfully at the latter date. Nothing is said about the dates on which these kilns were so modified, and from anything which appears, it may very well he that Shiner did not embody liis invention in any of the thirty odd kilns until after both parties had filed their applications, or even after Shiner’s patent had been issued. When the evidence of Shiner is sifted, therefore, it appears that all he is shown to have accomplished before the date of the filing of Edison’s applica¬ tion was the embodiment of the invention in a single kiln at the Atlus Cement Works; that there is no evidence whatever that the public had any in¬ formation as to the construction or mode of opera- , tion of that kiln, and that if the public did, in any way, reap any benefit from what was done at that time, it was by reason of the cement made in the kiln being put into the ordinary channels of trade. Of this, as already stated, there is no positive evi¬ dence, but if the cement was actually sold to the public, it would be of no value as a means of dis-
21
closing tlio invention, for it would have no peculiar characteristics flowing from the fact that it was made in a kiln embodying the invention in issue; it would be only ordinary Portlaud cement, with which the public was already perfectly familiar, the same as made in any other kiln, and the public could have no possible way of knowing that in manufacturing the particular cement a slight sav¬ ing had been effected by returning to the kiln the material which would otherwise have passed out of the stack. Shiner’s attorney strenuously con¬ tends that Shiner did not put his invention into public use, and if he is correct in this, it must he that the public reaped no benefit from his work, for there is nothing to show that the public, or any member thereof, had any knowledge of what was done by Shiner in 1»03 and 1904.
It will be noted that of the Exmniners-in-Chief who rendered the decision appealed from, two are agreed that Shiner did not disclose to the public before Edison’s application was filed. Examiner- in-Ghief Campbell’s views on this point are to be found on page 14, and Examiner-in-Chief Macau¬ lay's views on page 22 of the decision appealed from, the latter being as follows :
“Further, the record shows that Edison and not Shiner, was the first to take steps to place the invention before the public. It does not appear from the stipulation that Shiner made any efforts in this direction before his appli¬ cation for patent. A kiln embodying his in¬ vention was operated in August, 1904, and since that time the invention has been put in “thirty odd kilns,” according to the stipula¬ tion, but the date of any of the latter is not given nor is it stated that either tile first kiln or any of those subsequently modified to em¬ brace the invention was open to the public. It appeal's, therefore, that Edison in filing his ap¬ plication was -prior to Shiner in liis efforts to
give the invention to the public. In this re¬ spect also his case differs from those in which ' the doctrine of forfeiture wus successfully in¬ voked.”
In addition to the fact that Shiner did not dis¬ close the invention to the public until nfter Edi¬ son’s filing date, there is no evidence of diligence on his part. The cases uniformly hold that when a later inventor is to be favored at the expense of an earlier rival it must affirmatively appear, not only that the earlier was negligent, but also that the later inventor was in the exercise of all due dili¬ gence. Shiner has failed entirely to show diligence. Before Edison’s filing date ho has shown nothing more than a reduction to practice and lie allowed two years and three months to elapse before he filed his application. Upon this showing, how can Shiner claim the reward which is granted to the later inventor only upon condition that lie has been diligent?
Edison’s Application ; Shiner Within Rule of Mason vs. Hepburn.
In this state of affairs, Edison, in January, 190(5, filed his application. This action was taken by him entirely on his own initiative; he knew nothing of Shiner’s work, and it had nothing to do with his filing the application. We have shown that Edison claimed substantially the invention of the issue from the filing of his application, .thereby asserting from that time his right as the inventor thereof. The filing of Edison’s application,